Messages in this thread | | | From | Stephen Boyd <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] pinctrl: qcom: Don't allow protected pins to be requested | Date | Wed, 21 Mar 2018 13:04:36 -0700 |
| |
Quoting Andy Shevchenko (2018-03-21 11:07:09) > On Wed, 2018-03-21 at 09:58 -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > +static int msm_pinmux_request(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev, unsigned > > offset) > > +{ > > + struct msm_pinctrl *pctrl = pinctrl_dev_get_drvdata(pctldev); > > + struct gpio_chip *chip = &pctrl->chip; > > + > > + if (gpiochip_line_is_valid(chip, offset)) > > + return 0; > > + > > + return -EINVAL; > > Perhaps traditional pattern > > if (!...) > return -EINVAL; > > return 0; >
Or ternary?
return gpiochip_line_is_valid(chip, offset) ? 0 : -EINVAL;
> > > +} > > > seq_printf(s, " %dmA", msm_regval_to_drive(drive)); > > - seq_printf(s, " %s", pulls[pull]); > > + seq_printf(s, " %s\n", pulls[pull]); > > I had commented this once, but you ignored by some reason. > > I would rather just move > seq_puts(s, "\n"); > here. > > The rationale behind, besides making diff more neat, is to reduce > possible burden in the future if someone would like to squeeze more data > in between.
Sure.
> > > + tmp = kmalloc_array(len, sizeof(tmp[0]), GFP_KERNEL); > > sizeof(*tmp) ? >
Ok.
| |