[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <79CD15C6BA57404B839C016229A409A83EB43DBA@DBDE01.ent.ti.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 18:39:09 +0000
From: "Hiremath, Vaibhav" <hvaibhav@...com>
To: "Hunter, Jon" <jon-hunter@...com>
CC: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"Mohammed, Afzal" <afzal@...com>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-omap@...r.kernel.org" <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/5] ARM: OMAP2+: gpmc: Fix kernel BUG for DT boot mode
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 00:00:31, Hunter, Jon wrote:
>
> On 10/18/2012 01:04 PM, Hiremath, Vaibhav wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 22:12:07, Hunter, Jon wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >> Yes, but do you also see the bug that is hiding in gpmc_mem_init()?
> >>
> >> My point is to highlight this and not hide it, so that we can fix it
> >> now. Otherwise if we wait until we enable the gpmc driver with DT and
> >> this could hinder the DT migration later.
> >>
> >
> > As I already mentioned in my previous response, your patch is required
> > irrespective of this patch. I would consider your patch as a cleanup patch.
> >
> >
> > Both the patches are independent, your patch is handling the error path
> > properly, whereas, my patch makes sure that you don't unnecessarily probe
> > GPMC if you are booting from DT and GPMC node is not present, as described
> > above.
>
> Your patch hides a bug. That's my point. How do you expect am335x ever
> to support gpmc devices if this bug is not addressed?
>
Jon,
May be my commit description was mis-leading to you.
I am not commenting anything on your bug-fix, but do not agree that it is
anything to do with hiding a bug.
I only agree with you on one point, if someone wants to change the board-
file to use GPMC with DT boot mode, then he will not be able to use it.
> So I think that you are over-simplifying it when you say that my patch
> is just a clean-up patch. I agree that it is adding appropriate error
> handling, but it also highlights the presence of a bug by allowing the
> probe to fail.
>
> Anyway, I don't care to debate this any further,
Me neither...
> we just need to fix
> gpmc_mem_init().
>
Agreed, and that's what your patch rightly doing it.
Thanks,
Vaibhav
> Jon
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists