Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] omap3: beaglexm: fix power on of DVI

Tony Lindgren had written, on 01/11/2011 06:15 PM, the following:

* Nishanth Menon [off-list ref] [110111 15:54]:

quoted

Tony Lindgren had written, on 01/11/2011 05:23 PM, the following:
[..]

quoted

quoted

-
-	gpio_request(gpio + 1, "EHCI_nOC");
-	gpio_direction_input(gpio + 1);
+	if (omap3_beagle_get_rev() != OMAP3BEAGLE_BOARD_XM) {
+		gpio_request(gpio + 1, "EHCI_nOC");
+		gpio_direction_input(gpio + 1);
+	}

The return value for gpio_request must be checked.

Ack.
we can go down two paths:
a) I can redo this patch as in v6.patch (attached)

Yes let's do that, one comment below though..

quoted

OR
b) we take this patch and do another one cleaning the function up -
gpio-check.patch

That can be done later.

ok

quoted

+	if (omap3_beagle_get_rev() == OMAP3BEAGLE_BOARD_XM) {
+		r = gpio_request(gpio + 1, "nDVI_PWR_EN");
+		if (!r) {
+			r = gpio_direction_output(gpio + 1, 0);
+			if (r)
+				gpio_free(gpio + 1);
+		}
+		if (r)
+			pr_err("%s: unable to configure nDVI_PWR_EN\n",
+				__func__);
+		r = gpio_request(gpio + 2, "DVI_LDO_EN");
+		if (!r) {
+			r = gpio_direction_output(gpio + 2, 1);
+			if (r)
+				gpio_free(gpio + 1);
+		}
+		if (r)
+			pr_err("%s: unable to configure DVI_LDO_EN\n",
+				__func__);
+	}
+

Should the second gpio_free be gpio + 2 instead of gpio + 1?

oops.. yep. will fix and send out a v6 for this alone. thanks for the check.

-- 
Regards,
Nishanth Menon