[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAD=FV=W331nkdJJhXrXe739o+-iBSzGAS6anu+C_mmix0MbAUg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 10:59:37 -0700
From: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To: Alexander Graf <agraf@...e.de>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org,
dmueller@...e.de, Vivek Gautam <gautam.vivek@...sung.com>,
Jingoo Han <jg1.han@...sung.com>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@...sung.com>,
Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] USB: ehci-s5p: Fix phy reset
Alexander,
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Alexander Graf <agraf@...e.de> wrote:
>
>>> + gpio_free(gpio);
>>
>> Freeing the gpio is a little on the iffy side since you actually care
>> about keeping the value. Perhaps you can change this to
>> devm_gpio_request_one() and avoid the free? I was about to submit a
>> patch to do just that (since otherwise you run into trouble if you
>> ever defer the probe) but then ran across your patch.
>
> I could also just return it when the function exits and only free it when we exit the probe function with a negative value. The reason I put it in here was that on probe deferral, the pin simply gets blocked.
>
> However, I could probably also just completely take the gpio_free() out of this patch and resubmit, as it should be pretty much unrelated. Then you can patch it properly.
Sure, if you want to resubmit without the gpio_free() I'll submit a
new patch atop yours with the change to devm and people can see if
they like it...
--
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