linux-kernel - RE: [PATCHv8 RFC] pwm: Add Freescale FTM PWM driver support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 3 Jan 2014 09:16:06 +0000
From:	"Li.Xiubo@...escale.com" <Li.Xiubo@...escale.com>
To:	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
CC:	"thierry.reding@...il.com" <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
	"bpringlemeir@...ps.com" <bpringlemeir@...ps.com>,
	"linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org>,
	"grant.likely@...aro.org" <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
	"rob.herring@...xeda.com" <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Huan Wang <Huan.Wang@...escale.com>,
	Jingchang Lu <jingchang.lu@...escale.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCHv8 RFC] pwm: Add Freescale FTM PWM driver support

Hi Dmitry,

> Subject: Re: [PATCHv8 RFC] pwm: Add Freescale FTM PWM driver support
> 
> Hi Xiubo,
> 
> On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 01:24:21PM +0800, Xiubo Li wrote:
> > +
> > +static inline int fsl_pwm_calculate_default_ps(struct fsl_pwm_chip *fpc,
> > +					       enum fsl_pwm_clk index)
> > +{
> 
> Why do you declare this (and other module-local) function as inline?
> It is usually better let compiler decide if given function should be
> inlined or not.
> 

Could the compiler know when the given function should be inlined by not declare it?
And when will be inlined ?

> [...]
> 
> > +
> > +static int fsl_pwm_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > +{
> > +	struct fsl_pwm_chip *fpc = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> > +
> > +	mutex_destroy(&fpc->lock);
> > +
> > +	return pwmchip_remove(&fpc->chip);
> 
> fpc->lock will be used while pwmchip_remove() is running so you should
> not be destroying it before calling pwmchip_remove(). It should probbaly
> go into free() method or just drop it altogether.
> 

Yes, I think I should drop it here as Thierry has already pointed out.


Thanks very much.

--
Best Regards,
Xiubo

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/