On Thursday 26 September 2013 04:25 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 04:21:36PM +0530, Archit Taneja wrote:
Hi,
On Friday 20 September 2013 04:41 AM, Russell King wrote:
The correct way for a driver to specify the coherent DMA mask is
not to directly access the
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 04:21:36PM +0530, Archit Taneja wrote:
Hi,
On Friday 20 September 2013 04:41 AM, Russell King wrote:
The correct way for a driver to specify the coherent DMA mask is
not to directly access the field in the struct device, but to use
dma_set_coherent_mask(). Only arch
Hi,
On Friday 20 September 2013 04:41 AM, Russell King wrote:
The correct way for a driver to specify the coherent DMA mask is
not to directly access the field in the struct device, but to use
dma_set_coherent_mask(). Only arch and bus code should access this
member directly.
Convert all
The correct way for a driver to specify the coherent DMA mask is
not to directly access the field in the struct device, but to use
dma_set_coherent_mask(). Only arch and bus code should access this
member directly.
Convert all direct write accesses to using the correct API.
Signed-off-by:
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 12:11:38AM +0100, Russell King wrote:
The correct way for a driver to specify the coherent DMA mask is
not to directly access the field in the struct device, but to use
dma_set_coherent_mask(). Only arch and bus code should access this
member directly.
Convert all
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 07:16:52AM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 12:11:38AM +0100, Russell King wrote:
The correct way for a driver to specify the coherent DMA mask is
not to directly access the field in the struct device, but to use
dma_set_coherent_mask(). Only arch and
Hey,
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 03:00:18PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
Another would be if subsystem maintainers are happy that I carry them,
I can add the acks, and then later on towards the end of the cycle,
provide a branch subsystem maintainers could pull.
Or... if you can think
