On Nov 14, 2007 11:25 AM, David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net> wrote:
quoted text
> 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.

quoted text
>
> 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 :-)

quoted text
> - Dave
>
>



-- 
Cheers
- eric
-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/