[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110120040059.GA2389@legolas.emea.dhcp.ti.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 06:01:00 +0200
From: Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com>
To: Yang Ruirui <ruirui.r.yang@...to.com>
Cc: Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com>,
Yang Ruirui R <ruirui.r.yang@...toenator.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
Mian Yousaf Kaukab <mian.yousaf.kaukab@...ricsson.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...ricsson.com>,
Felipe Balbi <felipe.balbi@...ia.com>,
Heikki Krogerus <ext-heikki.krogerus@...ia.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>, Hema HK <hemahk@...com>,
"linux-usb@...r.kernel.org" <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb otg: use atomic notifier instead of blocking
notifier
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 10:06:38AM +0800, Yang Ruirui wrote:
> Actually I does not found where notifiers are used in these files except
> langwell_otg
>
> For langwell_otg.c there's a wrapper struct named "intel mid_otg_xceiv"
> in include/linux/usb/intel_mid_otg.h, it use an atomic notifier for
> interrupt context.
>
> So I think we'd better write another patch to make it use general
> otg_transceiver for notifier or just keep current code. What's your opinion?
I'm not the maintainer but I would rather see it using the notifier on
the otg_transceiver structure, and later add the support for the other
transceivers too.
--
balbi
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists