On Jun 15, 2012, at 11:50 AM, Pankaj Jangra wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 11:57 PM, Philip Rakity > <philipspatc...@gmail.com> wrote: >> V3 >> -- >> >> Fix type where data argument was not passed in >> blocking_notifier_call_chain. >> >> edits to check in comments (below) >> >> V2 >> -- >> >> Incorporate performance suggestions made by Mark Brown >> Use linux-next as base code rather than mmc-next >> >> The voltage being set should be passed to the call in handler >> requesting the callback. Currently this is not done. >> >> The callin handler cannot call regulator_get_voltage() to get the > > "The calling"
I am not sure what the correct term for this. The blocking_notifier_call_chain calls what ? calling might imply blocking_notifier_call_chain() since it is doing the calling. What is the receiver of the call named ? > >> information since the mutex is held by the regulator and >> deadlock occurs. >> >> Without this change the receiver of the call in cannot know what >> action to take. This is used, for example, to set PAD voltages >> when doing SD vccq voltage changes. >> >> Signed-off-by: Philip Rakity <prak...@marvell.com> >> --- > > Since you are submitting your patch from the different email than your > Singed-off email. So you should put in first line of message > From: <your real email>. > > Regards, > Pankaj Jangra -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
