On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 12:20 PM, Bamvor Zhang Jian <bamvor.zhangj...@linaro.org> wrote:
>> Here we are also below the previous chip, so above the current >> iterator and below the previous one so we found a "hole". >> Insert a comment that "we found a hole in the GPIO chip bases". > > Yes, we found a valid range between _chip_prev and chip. Is it more clear > if we use ranges(means [base,base+ngpio]) instead of bases? Maybe, maybe both. Suggest something that makes sense to you in your updated patch. >> And here we are above the last chip in the list. >> Insert a comment about that too. >> "We are beyond the last chip in the list". > > Yeap. I am sorry for the variable naming and comments. I will update them > in the next patch. The naming is not your fault, there was a bad precedent. > Except for the above comment, any comments or suggestions > for the logic? No it makes sense. Yours, Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
