On Nov 14, 2007 11:25 AM, David Brownell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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. > > 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 :-) > - Dave > > -- Cheers - eric - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
