Hi, On 06/08/15 21:41, Jyri Sarha wrote: > The only user of dss_of_port_get_parent_device() function is > omap_dss_find_output_by_port_node() and it assumes the refcount of the > port parameter is not decremented by the call. >
The subject of the patch should contain "dss-of", not "of-dss". Although for both patches I think it's fine to use plain "OMAPDSS: " prefix. The subject should also say "fix" or such. The description above is kind of "detached". A patch description should generally describe something in the lines of what the current behavior is, what the problem is, and what the patch does. And the desc should be independent of the subject. This particular case is rather simple, and it's clear that dss_of_port_get_parent_device() is not supposed to decrease the refcount of the "port" parameter (as that kind of behavior is normally a special case). And so it should be enough to say what the issue seen is and that you fix the function to not decrement the parameter's refcount. Tomi
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
