Hi
On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 09:36:41 -0500
Robert Nelson <robertcnel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +u8 get_omap3_beagle_rev(void)
> +{
> + return omap3_beagle_version;
> +}
> +
> +static void __init omap3_beagle_get_revision(void)
> +{
> + int ret;
> + u16 beagle_rev = 0;
> +
> + omap_mux_init_gpio(171, OMAP_PIN_INPUT_PULLUP);
> + omap_mux_init_gpio(172, OMAP_PIN_INPUT_PULLUP);
> + omap_mux_init_gpio(173, OMAP_PIN_INPUT_PULLUP);
> +
> + ret = gpio_request(171, "rev_id_0");
> + if (ret < 0)
> + goto fail;
> +
> + ret = gpio_request(172, "rev_id_1");
> + if (ret < 0)
> + goto fail;
> +
> + ret = gpio_request(173, "rev_id_2");
> + if (ret < 0)
> + goto fail;
> +
Sorry, I didn't notice this earlier: you should free already allocated
gpios if the next one fails.
<minor>
I was thinking would it make a sense to rename funtions below. I.e. to
indicate that only one of them is for runtime revision detection and
another is for revision initialization only. What do you think?
get_omap3_beagle_rev -> omap3_beagle_get_rev
omap3_beagle_get_revision -> omap3_beagle_init_rev
</minor>
Otherwise the set looks goot to me.
--
Jarkko
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
