On Tue, 2011-05-17 at 14:49 +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-05-16 at 14:13 +0300, Igor Grinberg wrote:
> > On 05/16/11 11:53, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> > > +static int ldp_twl_gpio_setup(struct device *dev, unsigned gpio,
> > > unsigned ngpio)
> > > +{
> > > + int r;
> > > +
> > > + struct gpio gpios[] = {
> > > + {gpio + 7 , GPIOF_OUT_INIT_LOW, "LCD ENABLE"},
> > > + {gpio + 15, GPIOF_OUT_INIT_LOW, "LCD BACKLIGHT"},
> > > + };
> > > +
> > > + r = gpio_request_array(gpios, ARRAY_SIZE(gpios));
> > > + if (r)
> > > + pr_err("Cannot request LCD GPIOs, error %d\n", r);
> > > +
> > > + ldp_backlight_gpio = gpio + 15;
> > > + ldp_lcd_enable_gpio = gpio + 7;
> >
> > If the gpio_request_array() fails (though it shouldn't),
> > won't it be right to set both variables to -EINVAL?
>
> Ah, yes. I'll fix that.
>
> Do you know what will happen if twl_gpio_setup fails? Just an error
> print, or will TWL driver fail?
And I wonder if gpio_is_valid() works correctly for GPIOs from an gpio
expander? With a quick search, gpio_is_valid returns true if gpio is
between [0, 256[, and doesn't care if there are gpio expanders or not...
Tomi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
