On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 6:14 AM, Alexandre Courbot <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 6:52 PM, Lars-Peter Clausen <[email protected]> wrote:
>> +static int zynq_gpio_get_bank_offset(unsigned int bank)
>> +{
>> + switch (bank) {
>> + case 0:
>> + return ZYNQ_GPIO_BANK0_PIN_MIN;
>> + case 1:
>> + return ZYNQ_GPIO_BANK1_PIN_MIN;
>> + case 2:
>> + return ZYNQ_GPIO_BANK2_PIN_MIN;
>> + case 3:
>> + return ZYNQ_GPIO_BANK3_PIN_MIN;
>> + default:
>> + /* We'll never get here */
>> + return -1;
>> + }
>> +}
>
> Wouldn't this be handled better by a simple, static array? I.e.
>
> static int zynq_gpio_bank_offset[] = {
> ZYNQ_GPIO_BANK0_PIN_MIN,
> ZYNQ_GPIO_BANK1_PIN_MIN,
> ZYNQ_GPIO_BANK2_PIN_MIN,
> ZYNQ_GPIO_BANK3_PIN_MIN
> };
>
> ...
>
> int bank offset = zynq_gpio_bank_offset(bank_num);
I agree, Lars-Peter can you please rewrite the patch to do it this way instead.
Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
