On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 03:31:15PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > +
> > +}
>
> empty free functions are a huge red flag. So much so the kobject
> documentation in the kernel says I get to make fun of anyone who tries
> to do this. So please don't do this :)
>
i was just working on the v2
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 03:31:15PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 01:18:41PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> > @@ -29,6 +31,7 @@
> > +struct bus_type parport_bus_type = {
> > + .name = "parport",
> > +};
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(parport_bus_type);
>
> They bus ty
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 01:18:41PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> @@ -29,6 +31,7 @@
> #include
> #include
> #include
> +#include
>
> #include
> #include
> @@ -100,6 +103,11 @@ static struct parport_operations dead_ops = {
> .owner = NULL,
> };
>
> +struct bus_type pa
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 01:18:41PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> --- a/drivers/parport/share.c
> +++ b/drivers/parport/share.c
> @@ -10,6 +10,8 @@
> * based on work by Grant Guenther
> * and Philip Blundell
> *
> + * Added Device-Model - Sudip Mukherjee
Changelog handles this, n
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 01:18:41PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> parport starts using device-model and we now have parport under
> /sys/bus. As the ports are discovered they are added as device under
> /sys/bus/parport. As and when other drivers register new device,
> they will be registered as a
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 12:45:00PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 02:50:55PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> >
> > > > + tmp->name = name;
> > >
> > > I wonder who frees this name variable. My concern is that it gets
> > > freed before we are done using it or somethi
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 02:50:55PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
>
> > > + tmp->name = name;
> >
> > I wonder who frees this name variable. My concern is that it gets
> > freed before we are done using it or something. (I have not looked at
> > the details).
> it will be done in free_port() the
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 02:50:55PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> this PARPORT_DEVPROC_REGISTERED flag is cleared in parport_unregister_device()
> and is set in parport_register_dev[ice], so when we call
> parport_register_device() or parport_register_dev() it will be not set
> and the condition w
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 11:33:59AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 01:18:41PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
>
>
> The difference between parport_register_device() and
> parport_register_dev() isn't clear from the name.
i kept the name similar deliberately as I thought that a
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 11:27:46AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> Sorry, I still haven't done a proper review.
for almost all your points: it came as i copied the parport_register_dev
from parport_register_device and just added some part leaving everything
else same. I will fix these points in v2 o
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 01:18:41PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> @@ -575,6 +647,7 @@ parport_register_device(struct parport *port, const char
> *name,
> tmp->irq_func = irq_func;
> tmp->waiting = 0;
> tmp->timeout = 5 * HZ;
> + tmp->devmodel = false;
>
> /* Chain th
Sorry, I still haven't done a proper review.
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 01:18:41PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> +struct pardevice *
> +parport_register_dev(struct parport *port, const char *name,
> + int (*pf)(void *), void (*kf)(void *),
> + void (*irq_func)(void
12 matches
Mail list logo
