On 12 February 2015 at 05:36, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> The alloc() and free() hooks required each pwrseq implementation to set
> host->pwrseq themselves. This is error-prone and could be done at a
> higher level if alloc() was changed to return a pointer to a struct
> mmc_pwrseq instead of an
On 12 February 2015 at 05:36, Alexandre Courbot acour...@nvidia.com wrote:
The alloc() and free() hooks required each pwrseq implementation to set
host-pwrseq themselves. This is error-prone and could be done at a
higher level if alloc() was changed to return a pointer to a struct
mmc_pwrseq
Chris, Ulf, gentle ping?
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 1:36 PM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> The alloc() and free() hooks required each pwrseq implementation to set
> host->pwrseq themselves. This is error-prone and could be done at a
> higher level if alloc() was changed to return a pointer to a struct
Chris, Ulf, gentle ping?
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 1:36 PM, Alexandre Courbot acour...@nvidia.com wrote:
The alloc() and free() hooks required each pwrseq implementation to set
host-pwrseq themselves. This is error-prone and could be done at a
higher level if alloc() was changed to return a
The alloc() and free() hooks required each pwrseq implementation to set
host->pwrseq themselves. This is error-prone and could be done at a
higher level if alloc() was changed to return a pointer to a struct
mmc_pwrseq instead of an error code.
This patch performs this change and moves the burden
The alloc() and free() hooks required each pwrseq implementation to set
host-pwrseq themselves. This is error-prone and could be done at a
higher level if alloc() was changed to return a pointer to a struct
mmc_pwrseq instead of an error code.
This patch performs this change and moves the burden
6 matches
Mail list logo
