[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJAp7Oj-3ZxvN8o=rg8YeTiXYWyQ1iowgisdU1R5UcZeh4VmOQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 07:40:33 -0700
From: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn@...o.se>
To: Suman Anna <s-anna@...com>
Cc: Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@...ery.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-omap@...r.kernel.org" <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 4/7] hwspinlock/core: add common OF helpers
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Suman Anna <s-anna@...com> wrote:
> This patch adds three new OF helper functions to use/request
> locks from a hwspinlock device instantiated through a
> device-tree blob.
>
Hi Ohad, Suman
I'm about to send out some patches that depends on this functionality,
how do we move forward?
I still think it's wrong to not return -EPROBE_DEFER, but I much
rather have the code returning NULL than not having it in the tree (we
can always argue about it later...).
@Suman, do you remember if there was any other comments on the patch?
@Ohad, do you object merging Suman's patch in it's current form? I
think it should still apply cleanly.
Regards,
Bjorn
--
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