On 03/06/2014 08:43 PM, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 11:41 AM, Linus Walleij
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Stephen Warren
>> wrote:
>>> On 03/04/2014 07:37 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Stephen Warren
wrote:
> On
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 11:41 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 03/04/2014 07:37 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Stephen Warren
>>> wrote:
On 03/04/2014 06:43 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
>>>
> If I
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 03/04/2014 07:37 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Stephen Warren
>> wrote:
>>> On 03/04/2014 06:43 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
>>
If I understand the situation correctly it's like ACPI does not have named
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Stephen Warren swar...@wwwdotorg.org wrote:
On 03/04/2014 07:37 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Stephen Warren swar...@wwwdotorg.org
wrote:
On 03/04/2014 06:43 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
If I understand the situation correctly it's
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 11:41 AM, Linus Walleij linus.wall...@linaro.org wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Stephen Warren swar...@wwwdotorg.org wrote:
On 03/04/2014 07:37 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Stephen Warren swar...@wwwdotorg.org
wrote:
On 03/04/2014
On 03/06/2014 08:43 PM, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 11:41 AM, Linus Walleij linus.wall...@linaro.org
wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Stephen Warren swar...@wwwdotorg.org
wrote:
On 03/04/2014 07:37 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Stephen
On 03/04/2014 07:37 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 03/04/2014 06:43 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
>
>>> If I understand the situation correctly it's like ACPI does not have named
>>> GPIOs so keeping specifying this in DT GPIO bindings is
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 03/04/2014 06:43 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> If I understand the situation correctly it's like ACPI does not have named
>> GPIOs so keeping specifying this in DT GPIO bindings is counter-productive
>> to the work of abstracting the
On 03/04/2014 06:43 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 7:04 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>
>>> - gpio = devm_gpiod_get_index(>dev, rfkill->reset_name, 0);
>>> + gpio = devm_gpiod_get_index(>dev, NULL, 0);
>>
>> I think the correct fix here is to look up the GPIO by name
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 7:04 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> - gpio = devm_gpiod_get_index(>dev, rfkill->reset_name, 0);
>> + gpio = devm_gpiod_get_index(>dev, NULL, 0);
>
> I think the correct fix here is to look up the GPIO by name rather than
> by index, but simply hard-code the name
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 7:04 AM, Stephen Warren swar...@wwwdotorg.org wrote:
- gpio = devm_gpiod_get_index(pdev-dev, rfkill-reset_name, 0);
+ gpio = devm_gpiod_get_index(pdev-dev, NULL, 0);
I think the correct fix here is to look up the GPIO by name rather than
by index, but simply
On 03/04/2014 06:43 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 7:04 AM, Stephen Warren swar...@wwwdotorg.org wrote:
- gpio = devm_gpiod_get_index(pdev-dev, rfkill-reset_name, 0);
+ gpio = devm_gpiod_get_index(pdev-dev, NULL, 0);
I think the correct fix here is to look up the
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Stephen Warren swar...@wwwdotorg.org wrote:
On 03/04/2014 06:43 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
If I understand the situation correctly it's like ACPI does not have named
GPIOs so keeping specifying this in DT GPIO bindings is counter-productive
to the work of
On 03/04/2014 07:37 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Stephen Warren swar...@wwwdotorg.org wrote:
On 03/04/2014 06:43 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
If I understand the situation correctly it's like ACPI does not have named
GPIOs so keeping specifying this in DT GPIO
On 02/25/2014 05:22 AM, Heikki Krogerus wrote:
> There is no use for them in this driver. This will fix a
> static checker warning..
>
> net/rfkill/rfkill-gpio.c:144 rfkill_gpio_probe()
> warn: variable dereferenced before check 'rfkill->name'
>
> This will also make sure that when DT
There is no use for them in this driver. This will fix a
static checker warning..
net/rfkill/rfkill-gpio.c:144 rfkill_gpio_probe()
warn: variable dereferenced before check 'rfkill->name'
This will also make sure that when DT support is added,
"gpios" property can be used as no con_id
There is no use for them in this driver. This will fix a
static checker warning..
net/rfkill/rfkill-gpio.c:144 rfkill_gpio_probe()
warn: variable dereferenced before check 'rfkill-name'
This will also make sure that when DT support is added,
gpios property can be used as no con_id labels
On 02/25/2014 05:22 AM, Heikki Krogerus wrote:
There is no use for them in this driver. This will fix a
static checker warning..
net/rfkill/rfkill-gpio.c:144 rfkill_gpio_probe()
warn: variable dereferenced before check 'rfkill-name'
This will also make sure that when DT support is
18 matches
Mail list logo
