From: Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 22:28:59 +0200
> Sure. While we're at it, is there a specific reason various sbus
> drivers reimplement i2c functionality instead of using the common
> code?
There wer no suitable i2c client registry, sharing, and
mutual exclusion
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 12:33:09PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
> From: Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 15:51:28 +0200
>
> > envctrl currently uses very odd ways to stop a thread, using various
> > things that should be exposed to drivers at all.
> >
> > This patch
From: Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 15:51:28 +0200
> envctrl currently uses very odd ways to stop a thread, using various
> things that should be exposed to drivers at all.
>
> This patch (which is untested as I don't have sparc hardware) switches
> it to use the pro
envctrl currently uses very odd ways to stop a thread, using various
things that should be exposed to drivers at all.
This patch (which is untested as I don't have sparc hardware) switches
it to use the proper kthread infrastructure.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Index: l
