On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 6:52 AM Hennie Muller <h...@bitlabs.co.za> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 10:05:00AM +0800, Phil Reid wrote:
> > I've encountered these checkpatch warnings as well. > > > > However 'struct gpio_chip' callbacks define the function signatures > > as 'unsigned', not 'unsigned int'. So I've also left them as is, to > > explicitly > > match the struct definition. > > > > Be interested to know what the official take on this is. > In hindsight, I saw most of the other gpio drivers follow the same > convention as the viperboard driver. which means > a) my changes add no value and just creates inconsistency. > or > b) there's an opportunity to fix up the rest of the gpio drivers as > well? Which I'll be happy to do. I think it is fine to fix this in drivers and we can fix the prototypes as well. Yours, Linus Walleij
