Re: [PATCH 2/4] gpio: samsung: Skip registration if pinctrl driver is present on Exynos4x12
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Tomasz Figa t.f...@samsung.com wrote: This patch modifies the Samsung GPIO driver to check for pinctrl driver presence earlier and use generic matching instead of a single compatible value. This allows us to fix warning about unrecognized SoC in case of Exynos4x12, which is not supported by this driver. Signed-off-by: Tomasz Figa t.f...@samsung.com Signed-off-by: Kyungmin Park kyungmin.p...@samsung.com Acked-by: Linus Walleij linus.wall...@linaro.org Tell me if there is something you want merged through the GPIO or pinctrl tree. I have this Samsung branch on the pinctrl tree... Yours, Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH 3/4] pinctrl: samsung: Add support for Exynos4x12
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Tomasz Figa t.f...@samsung.com wrote: This patch extends the driver with any necessary SoC-specific definitions to support Exynos4x12 SoCs. Signed-off-by: Tomasz Figa t.f...@samsung.com Signed-off-by: Kyungmin Park kyungmin.p...@samsung.com Acked-by: Linus Walleij linus.wall...@linaro.org I guess you need all of this to go into my Samsung branch? I need and ACK from the Samsung maintainer and preferably Thomas A as well. Yours, Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH 4/4] ARM: dts: exynos4x12: Add nodes for pin controllers
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Tomasz Figa t.f...@samsung.com wrote: This patch adds nodes for pin controllers available on Exynos4x12 SoCs supported by pinctrl-samsung driver. Signed-off-by: Tomasz Figa t.f...@samsung.com Signed-off-by: Kyungmin Park kyungmin.p...@samsung.com Acked-by: Linus Walleij linus.wall...@linaro.org Yours, Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH 3/4] pinctrl: samsung: Add support for Exynos4x12
On 10/29/12, Linus Walleij linus.wall...@linaro.org wrote: On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Tomasz Figa t.f...@samsung.com wrote: This patch extends the driver with any necessary SoC-specific definitions to support Exynos4x12 SoCs. Signed-off-by: Tomasz Figa t.f...@samsung.com Signed-off-by: Kyungmin Park kyungmin.p...@samsung.com Acked-by: Linus Walleij linus.wall...@linaro.org I guess you need all of this to go into my Samsung branch? I need and ACK from the Samsung maintainer and preferably Thomas A as well. Hi, Now we're trying to send the standalone patches to avoid the conflict. and hope to merge patches via proper subsystem. In this case, pinctl. Thank you, Kyungmin Park Yours, Linus Walleij ___ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] DMA: PL330: Balance module remove function with probe
On Sat, 2012-10-27 at 15:50 +0530, Inderpal Singh wrote: Hi Vinod, On 26 October 2012 10:15, Vinod Koul vk...@infradead.org wrote: On Thu, 2012-10-25 at 16:53 +0530, Inderpal Singh wrote: This code will get executed only in case of force removal of the module which was discussed in the first version of the patch at [1]. Now, if we do not have to think about force removal then this patch will go back to the first version. But why are you doing force removal of driver even when client is holding a reference to you. What happens when client finally tries to free the channel? Since we return EBUSY so forced removal won't succeed. Client can free the channel eventually. And that is my concern. You have forcefully removed the dma module. What happens then? How will the free calll get executed, wont you hit a panic. What is the problem you are trying to solve? There was a long discussion about it in the first version of the patch. Allow me to explain it to you. The existing driver does DMA_TERMINATE_ALL and frees resources for all the channels in the _remove function. Which for starters may not be right thing to do. Shouldn't you first make sure client has freed all references to your driver and then only remove. Freeing resources in .remove without keeping client in sync doesn't sound to be good idea to me. The first version of patch removed this flushing and freeing of channel resources because they are not getting allocated in the probe. Jassi pointed out that manual flushing is needed if a force removal happens and some client is queued. Then it was agreed that flushing is not needed, instead we should return EBUSY if client is queued on some channel (this will happen only in force removal case). Hence this additional check in v2 version so that force removal does not succeeds if any client is queued. If you think force removal is not a practical scenario and we should not be bothering about it, this check can be removed and the patch will go back to first version which just removes flushing and freeing of channels beacues they are not getting allocated in probe. Let me know your view. Regards, Inder Let me know your view. [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/1503171/ -- Vinod Koul Intel Corp. -- Vinod Koul Intel Corp. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
