Hi Chris, On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 12:16:01PM -0800, Christopher Heiny wrote: > This patch fixes two bugs in handling of the RMI4 attention line GPIO. > > 1) in enable_sensor(), make sure the attn_gpio is defined before attempting to > get its value. > > 2) in rmi_driver_probe(), declare the name of the attn_gpio, then > request the attn_gpio before attempting to export it. > > Also introduces a GPIO_LABEL constant for identifying the attention GPIO. >
I was looking at the patch some more and I have some concerns with it. > Signed-off-by: Christopher Heiny <[email protected]> > Cc: Dmitry Torokhov <[email protected]> > Cc: Benjamin Tissoires <[email protected]> > > --- > > drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_driver.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++----------- > 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_driver.c b/drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_driver.c > index a30c7d3..33fb8f8 100644 > --- a/drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_driver.c > +++ b/drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_driver.c > @@ -169,7 +169,7 @@ static int enable_sensor(struct rmi_device *rmi_dev) > > data->enabled = true; > > - if (!pdata->level_triggered && > + if (pdata->attn_gpio && !pdata->level_triggered && O is perfectly fine GPIO number, you want to use gpio_is_valid() hete. I also wonder why do you need such elaborate check. Can we simply "flush" device before enabling interrupts? > gpio_get_value(pdata->attn_gpio) == pdata->attn_polarity) > retval = process_interrupt_requests(rmi_dev); > > @@ -807,6 +807,8 @@ static int rmi_driver_remove(struct device *dev) > return 0; > } > > +static const char GPIO_LABEL[] = "attn"; > + > static int rmi_driver_probe(struct device *dev) > { > struct rmi_driver *rmi_driver; > @@ -959,20 +961,24 @@ static int rmi_driver_probe(struct device *dev) > } > > if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RMI4_DEV) && pdata->attn_gpio) { > - retval = gpio_export(pdata->attn_gpio, false); > + retval = gpio_request(pdata->attn_gpio, GPIO_LABEL); Here it is too late to request GPIO. You have been converting it to IRQ, enabling that IRQ and calling gpio_get_value() so GPIO should have already been requested by now. So you need to move this code up. You may also consider using gpio_request_one() and use GPIOF_EXPORT flag if you want to export it. It would also be nice to set the direction (GPIOF_DIR_IN). I also do not see matching call to gpio_free() in remove(). > if (retval) { > - dev_warn(dev, "WARNING: Failed to export ATTN gpio!\n"); > - retval = 0; > + dev_warn(dev, "WARNING: Failed to request ATTN gpio %d, > code: %d.\n", > + pdata->attn_gpio, retval); > } else { > - retval = gpio_export_link(dev, > - "attn", pdata->attn_gpio); > + retval = gpio_export(pdata->attn_gpio, false); > if (retval) { > - dev_warn(dev, > - "WARNING: Failed to symlink ATTN > gpio!\n"); > - retval = 0; > + dev_warn(dev, "WARNING: Failed to export ATTN > gpio %d, code: %d.\n", > + pdata->attn_gpio, retval); > } else { > - dev_info(dev, "Exported ATTN GPIO %d.", > - pdata->attn_gpio); > + retval = gpio_export_link(dev, GPIO_LABEL, > + pdata->attn_gpio); > + if (retval) > + dev_warn(dev, > + "WARNING: Failed to symlink > ATTN gpio!\n"); > + else > + dev_info(dev, "Exported ATTN GPIO %d.", > + pdata->attn_gpio); > } > } > } Thanks. -- Dmitry -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
