On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 10:31:28AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 11:22:47AM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 09:41:46PM +1300, Tony Prisk wrote:
> > > Further to the discussion, my preference is still for of_clk_get()
> > > (although I've
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 11:22:47AM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 09:41:46PM +1300, Tony Prisk wrote:
> > Further to the discussion, my preference is still for of_clk_get()
> > (although I've changed the patch anyway as you saw because it makes no
> > difference in this
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 09:41:46PM +1300, Tony Prisk wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-10-22 at 10:04 +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 08:36:22PM +1300, Tony Prisk wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2012-10-22 at 09:24 +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 08:09:07PM +1300,
On Mon, 2012-10-22 at 10:04 +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 08:36:22PM +1300, Tony Prisk wrote:
> > On Mon, 2012-10-22 at 09:24 +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 08:09:07PM +1300, Tony Prisk wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2012-10-22 at 19:51 +1300, Tony
On Mon, 2012-10-22 at 10:04 +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 08:36:22PM +1300, Tony Prisk wrote:
On Mon, 2012-10-22 at 09:24 +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 08:09:07PM +1300, Tony Prisk wrote:
On Mon, 2012-10-22 at 19:51 +1300, Tony Prisk wrote:
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 09:41:46PM +1300, Tony Prisk wrote:
On Mon, 2012-10-22 at 10:04 +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 08:36:22PM +1300, Tony Prisk wrote:
On Mon, 2012-10-22 at 09:24 +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 08:09:07PM +1300, Tony Prisk
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 11:22:47AM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 09:41:46PM +1300, Tony Prisk wrote:
Further to the discussion, my preference is still for of_clk_get()
(although I've changed the patch anyway as you saw because it makes no
difference in this case) :)
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 10:31:28AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 11:22:47AM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 09:41:46PM +1300, Tony Prisk wrote:
Further to the discussion, my preference is still for of_clk_get()
(although I've changed
On Mon, 2012-10-22 at 17:08 +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 01:52:08PM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Monday 22 October 2012, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > > As long as we get build warnings for leaving out the __devinit/__devexit
> > > > annotations, I would generally
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 01:52:08PM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Monday 22 October 2012, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > As long as we get build warnings for leaving out the __devinit/__devexit
> > > annotations, I would generally recommend putting them in. If we do a
> > > patch to remove all of
On Monday 22 October 2012, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > As long as we get build warnings for leaving out the __devinit/__devexit
> > annotations, I would generally recommend putting them in. If we do a
> > patch to remove all of them, a couple extra instances will not cause
> > any more troubles than
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 11:50:21AM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Monday 22 October 2012, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 07:51:52PM +1300, Tony Prisk wrote:
> > > Replies to your comments inline:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 2012-10-22 at 08:34 +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > ...
>
On Monday 22 October 2012, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 07:51:52PM +1300, Tony Prisk wrote:
> > Replies to your comments inline:
> >
> > On Mon, 2012-10-22 at 08:34 +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > ...
> > > > -static int __devinit pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > >
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 08:36:22PM +1300, Tony Prisk wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-10-22 at 09:24 +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 08:09:07PM +1300, Tony Prisk wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2012-10-22 at 19:51 +1300, Tony Prisk wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > chip = devm_kzalloc(>dev,
On Mon, 2012-10-22 at 09:24 +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 08:09:07PM +1300, Tony Prisk wrote:
> > On Mon, 2012-10-22 at 19:51 +1300, Tony Prisk wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > chip = devm_kzalloc(>dev, sizeof(*chip), GFP_KERNEL);
> > > > > if (chip == NULL) {
> > > >
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 08:09:07PM +1300, Tony Prisk wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-10-22 at 19:51 +1300, Tony Prisk wrote:
> > >
> > > > chip = devm_kzalloc(>dev, sizeof(*chip), GFP_KERNEL);
> > > > if (chip == NULL) {
> > > > dev_err(>dev, "failed to allocate memory\n");
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 07:51:52PM +1300, Tony Prisk wrote:
> Replies to your comments inline:
>
> On Mon, 2012-10-22 at 08:34 +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> ...
> > > -static int __devinit pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > +static const struct of_device_id vt8500_pwm_dt_ids[] = {
> >
On Mon, 2012-10-22 at 19:51 +1300, Tony Prisk wrote:
> >
> > > chip = devm_kzalloc(>dev, sizeof(*chip), GFP_KERNEL);
> > > if (chip == NULL) {
> > > dev_err(>dev, "failed to allocate memory\n");
> > > @@ -123,26 +144,32 @@ static int __devinit pwm_probe(struct
> > > platform_device
Replies to your comments inline:
On Mon, 2012-10-22 at 08:34 +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
...
> > -static int __devinit pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > +static const struct of_device_id vt8500_pwm_dt_ids[] = {
> > + { .compatible = "via,vt8500-pwm", },
> > + { /* Sentinel */ }
> >
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 11:38:54PM +1300, Tony Prisk wrote:
> This patch updates pwm-vt8500.c to support devicetree probing and
> make use of the common clock subsystem.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tony Prisk
> ---
> drivers/pwm/pwm-vt8500.c | 79
> ++
> 1
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 11:38:54PM +1300, Tony Prisk wrote:
This patch updates pwm-vt8500.c to support devicetree probing and
make use of the common clock subsystem.
Signed-off-by: Tony Prisk li...@prisktech.co.nz
---
drivers/pwm/pwm-vt8500.c | 79
Replies to your comments inline:
On Mon, 2012-10-22 at 08:34 +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
...
-static int __devinit pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
+static const struct of_device_id vt8500_pwm_dt_ids[] = {
+ { .compatible = via,vt8500-pwm, },
+ { /* Sentinel */ }
+};
+
On Mon, 2012-10-22 at 19:51 +1300, Tony Prisk wrote:
chip = devm_kzalloc(pdev-dev, sizeof(*chip), GFP_KERNEL);
if (chip == NULL) {
dev_err(pdev-dev, failed to allocate memory\n);
@@ -123,26 +144,32 @@ static int __devinit pwm_probe(struct
platform_device *pdev)
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 07:51:52PM +1300, Tony Prisk wrote:
Replies to your comments inline:
On Mon, 2012-10-22 at 08:34 +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
...
-static int __devinit pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
+static const struct of_device_id vt8500_pwm_dt_ids[] = {
+ {
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 08:09:07PM +1300, Tony Prisk wrote:
On Mon, 2012-10-22 at 19:51 +1300, Tony Prisk wrote:
chip = devm_kzalloc(pdev-dev, sizeof(*chip), GFP_KERNEL);
if (chip == NULL) {
dev_err(pdev-dev, failed to allocate memory\n);
@@
On Mon, 2012-10-22 at 09:24 +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 08:09:07PM +1300, Tony Prisk wrote:
On Mon, 2012-10-22 at 19:51 +1300, Tony Prisk wrote:
chip = devm_kzalloc(pdev-dev, sizeof(*chip), GFP_KERNEL);
if (chip == NULL) {
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 08:36:22PM +1300, Tony Prisk wrote:
On Mon, 2012-10-22 at 09:24 +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 08:09:07PM +1300, Tony Prisk wrote:
On Mon, 2012-10-22 at 19:51 +1300, Tony Prisk wrote:
chip = devm_kzalloc(pdev-dev, sizeof(*chip),
On Monday 22 October 2012, Thierry Reding wrote:
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 07:51:52PM +1300, Tony Prisk wrote:
Replies to your comments inline:
On Mon, 2012-10-22 at 08:34 +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
...
-static int __devinit pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
+static const
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 11:50:21AM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Monday 22 October 2012, Thierry Reding wrote:
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 07:51:52PM +1300, Tony Prisk wrote:
Replies to your comments inline:
On Mon, 2012-10-22 at 08:34 +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
...
-static int
On Monday 22 October 2012, Thierry Reding wrote:
As long as we get build warnings for leaving out the __devinit/__devexit
annotations, I would generally recommend putting them in. If we do a
patch to remove all of them, a couple extra instances will not cause
any more troubles than we
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 01:52:08PM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Monday 22 October 2012, Thierry Reding wrote:
As long as we get build warnings for leaving out the __devinit/__devexit
annotations, I would generally recommend putting them in. If we do a
patch to remove all of them, a
On Mon, 2012-10-22 at 17:08 +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 01:52:08PM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Monday 22 October 2012, Thierry Reding wrote:
As long as we get build warnings for leaving out the __devinit/__devexit
annotations, I would generally recommend
32 matches
Mail list logo
