Hi Geert,
On Mon, Jun 08, 2020 at 09:39:51AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Dinghao,
>
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 5:03 AM wrote:
> > > > I wonder how many bugs we have today, and how many bugs will keep
> > > > appearing in the future, due to this historical design mistake :-(
> >
> > Good
Hi Dinghao,
On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 5:03 AM wrote:
> > > I wonder how many bugs we have today, and how many bugs will keep
> > > appearing in the future, due to this historical design mistake :-(
>
> Good question. It's hard to say if this is a design mistake (some use
> of this API does not
>
> The vsp1_probe() function has a struct vsp1_device whose dev field is
> populated by the time it needs to call pm_runtime_get_sync() and
> pm_runtime_get_put(), so I think you can use vsp1_device_get() and
> vsp1_device_put() as drop-in replacements without changing the
> parameters to these
Hi Dianghao,
On Mon, Jun 08, 2020 at 11:03:26AM +0800, dinghao@zju.edu.cn wrote:
> Hi Laurent,
>
> > > I wonder how many bugs we have today, and how many bugs will keep
> > > appearing in the future, due to this historical design mistake :-(
>
> Good question. It's hard to say if this is a
Hi Laurent,
> >
> > I wonder how many bugs we have today, and how many bugs will keep
> > appearing in the future, due to this historical design mistake :-(
> >
Good question. It's hard to say if this is a design mistake (some use
of this API does not check its return value and expects it
5 matches
Mail list logo
