From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1763666AbXKNGhY (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Nov 2007 01:37:24 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1759014AbXKNGhN (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Nov 2007 01:37:13 -0500 Received: from ro-out-1112.google.com ([72.14.202.180]:27080 "EHLO ro-out-1112.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758431AbXKNGhL (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Nov 2007 01:37:11 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=VGu+YH+lTzITSdTPqXh7kmjvRKj2Z2wfZFDEER3YxMdBEwqw5Zgys906JopK6mdCowzq6+7IpBmq7Vn0w8OTt4+BbvEctePyYmx6lFacp6OtxxKaiUUzHr9Mi8qu3XjE13ZINi9G05eS5OGXTsVOPNPNdHx2ZTXHhBJYg3nVtGQ= Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 14:37:06 +0800 From: "eric miao" To: "David Brownell" Subject: Re: [patch/rfc 1/4] GPIO implementation framework Cc: "Linux Kernel list" , "Felipe Balbi" , "Bill Gatliff" , "Haavard Skinnemoen" , "Andrew Victor" , "Tony Lindgren" , "Jean Delvare" , "Kevin Hilman" , "Paul Mundt" , "Ben Dooks" In-Reply-To: <200711131925.11734.david-b@pacbell.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <200710291809.29936.david-b@pacbell.net> <200711131925.11734.david-b@pacbell.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Nov 14, 2007 11:25 AM, David Brownell wrote: > On Tuesday 13 November 2007, eric miao wrote: > > > > Here comes a bunch of patches to illustrate my idea, some are not related to > > the point I mentioned, and they are not mature for now :-) > > > > Subject: [PATCH 1/5] add gpio_is_onchip() for commonly used gpio range checking > > I'll send substantive comments later, but meanwhile note > that the *CURRENT* version was posted last Friday: > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=119463810905330&w=2 > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=119463811005344&w=2 > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=119463811105352&w=2 > > Plus the appended tweak. It's more useful to send patches > against current code, so applying them doesn't provide a > small avalanche of rejects. :) > Ok, I'll update the patches later. > > With respect to this patch adding gpio_is_onchip(), I > don't see a point. The "gpio >= chip->base" check > is basically "are the data structures corrupted?" and > so it should only be done if "extra_checks" is defined. > (And IMO, not then ...) And combining the other two tests > that way doesn't make anything more clear to me. That's > somewhat of a style issue, I guess, unless you're like > me and don't much trust GCC to avoid extra instructions. > just a style issue, moving something commonly done into a routine, and extra_checks could be put there instead everywhere for a clean look :-) > - Dave > > -- Cheers - eric