Hi Vinod,
On 29 October 2012 10:15, Vinod Koul vk...@infradead.org wrote:
On Sat, 2012-10-27 at 15:50 +0530, Inderpal Singh wrote:
Hi Vinod,
On 26 October 2012 10:15, Vinod Koul vk...@infradead.org wrote:
On Thu, 2012-10-25 at 16:53 +0530, Inderpal Singh wrote:
This code will get
On Sat, 2012-10-27 at 15:50 +0530, Inderpal Singh wrote:
Hi Vinod,
On 26 October 2012 10:15, Vinod Koul vk...@infradead.org wrote:
On Thu, 2012-10-25 at 16:53 +0530, Inderpal Singh wrote:
This code will get executed only in case of force removal of the
module which was discussed in the
Hi Vinod,
On 26 October 2012 10:15, Vinod Koul vk...@infradead.org wrote:
On Thu, 2012-10-25 at 16:53 +0530, Inderpal Singh wrote:
This code will get executed only in case of force removal of the
module which was discussed in the first version of the patch at [1].
Now, if we do not have to
On Thu, 2012-10-25 at 16:53 +0530, Inderpal Singh wrote:
This code will get executed only in case of force removal of the
module which was discussed in the first version of the patch at [1].
Now, if we do not have to think about force removal then this patch
will go back to the first
Hi Vinod,
On 24 October 2012 09:44, Vinod Koul vk...@infradead.org wrote:
On Fri, 2012-10-05 at 15:47 +0530, Inderpal Singh wrote:
Since peripheral channel resources are not being allocated at probe,
no need to flush the channels and free the resources in remove function.
In case, the channel
Since peripheral channel resources are not being allocated at probe,
no need to flush the channels and free the resources in remove function.
In case, the channel is in use by some client, return EBUSY.
Signed-off-by: Inderpal Singh inderpal.si...@linaro.org
---
drivers/dma/pl330.c | 13
