Hi Sean,
On 10/21/2017 12:52 AM, Sean Paul wrote:
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 11:48:05AM +0800, Jeffy Chen wrote:
This patch has somehow lost it's original author. I assume this is not
intentional.
oops, sorry, guess i used some wrongly command during the rebasing...
will fix that.
Hi Sean,
On 10/21/2017 12:52 AM, Sean Paul wrote:
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 11:48:05AM +0800, Jeffy Chen wrote:
This patch has somehow lost it's original author. I assume this is not
intentional.
oops, sorry, guess i used some wrongly command during the rebasing...
will fix that.
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 11:48:05AM +0800, Jeffy Chen wrote:
This patch has somehow lost it's original author. I assume this is not
intentional.
Sean
> The driver that instantiates the bridge should own the drvdata, as all
> driver model callbacks (probe, remove, shutdown, PM ops, etc.) are also
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 11:48:05AM +0800, Jeffy Chen wrote:
This patch has somehow lost it's original author. I assume this is not
intentional.
Sean
> The driver that instantiates the bridge should own the drvdata, as all
> driver model callbacks (probe, remove, shutdown, PM ops, etc.) are also
The driver that instantiates the bridge should own the drvdata, as all
driver model callbacks (probe, remove, shutdown, PM ops, etc.) are also
owned by its driver struct. Moreover, storing two different pointer
types in driver data depending on driver initialization status is barely
a good
The driver that instantiates the bridge should own the drvdata, as all
driver model callbacks (probe, remove, shutdown, PM ops, etc.) are also
owned by its driver struct. Moreover, storing two different pointer
types in driver data depending on driver initialization status is barely
a good
6 matches
Mail list logo