On Wednesday 15 of April 2009 04:23:49 Eric Miao wrote:
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 5:42 AM, Marek Vasut marek.vasut@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday 14 of April 2009 21:50:36 Mark Brown wrote:
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 08:51:19PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
+static struct pxa2xx_ac97_platform_data palmld_ac97_pdata = {
- .reset_gpio = 95,
+};
The type of this will need changing to reflect the patch that got merged for this but other than that minor point this approach is fine.
OK, shall I change it and resend (ps. to what if you dont mind telling me?) ? Also, do you want to push it through also tree or ARM tree ? I'm for the second option as it's more of a bugfix suitable for that tree.
Sorry, late on this. The changes to the platform part look OK to me,
and some minor things you may have another look:
-static int __init palm27x_asoc_init(void) +static int palm27x_asoc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
__devinit
Thanks, true, will revise it later today and resend ...
{ int ret;
@@ -208,6 +208,10 @@ static int __init palm27x_asoc_init(void) machine_is_palmld())) return -ENODEV;
- if (pdev->dev.platform_data)
palm27x_ep_gpio = ((struct palm27x_asoc_info *)(pdev->dev.platform_data))->jack_gpio;This is not so readable, I'd prefer to introduce a variable for the 'struct palm27x_asoc_info *' pointer.
Come on, we are not doing the kernel only for ub...u so this should be OK for everyone who can code in C. :-)
ret = gpio_request(palm27x_ep_gpio, "Headphone Jack"); if (ret) return ret;