On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 7:20 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> Note the following return in between the locking and unlocking -
>> need an unlock there?
>>
>>> + case PIN_CONFIG_DRIVE_STRENGTH:
>>> + strength = pinconf_to_config_argument(configs[i]);
>>> +
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 5:24 PM, Sherman Yin wrote:
> Hmm, I fixed this the first time I ported over to LinusW's devel tree,
> but when I rebased on Sunday, the spin lock commit seemed to be
> reverted or gone.
My pinctrl devel branch was branched off of v3.11-rc1, and the
spinlock changes were
>I made a bit different fix, I just lock the spinlock around the entire
>loop, as this is not doing any delays or anything like that and
>just hammer a few registers with the settings, it makes sense to
>have that inside a single lock:
Hmm, I fixed this the first time I ported over to LinusW's dev
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 9:17 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action
> is required).
I made a bit different fix, I just lock the spinlock around the entire
loop, as this is not doing any delays or anything like that and
just hammer a
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 9:17 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Linus,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the pinctrl tree got a conflict in
> drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-sunxi.c between commit 1bee963db9dd ("pinctrl:
> sunxi: Add spinlocks") from Linus' tree and commit 03b054e9696c
> ("pinctrl: Pass all
On 06/17/2013 08:11 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Linus,
Hi Stephen,
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no
> action is required).
The fix looks good.
Sebastian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
6 matches
Mail list logo
