On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 04:31:15PM -0700, noman pouigt wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 2:02 AM, Charles Keepax
> wrote:
> >> > I'm also very surprised that this is failing for you as I know this code
> >> > has been fairly heavily exercised with devices with
On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 04:31:15PM -0700, noman pouigt wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 2:02 AM, Charles Keepax
> wrote:
> >> > I'm also very surprised that this is failing for you as I know this code
> >> > has been fairly heavily exercised with devices with very large register
> >> > maps much
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 2:02 AM, Charles Keepax
wrote:
Thanks for replying.
> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 01:28:15PM -0700, Variksla wrote:
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 21, 2017, at 10:27 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for the response.
>> >
>> >>
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 2:02 AM, Charles Keepax
wrote:
Thanks for replying.
> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 01:28:15PM -0700, Variksla wrote:
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 21, 2017, at 10:27 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for the response.
>> >
>> >> On Sat, Apr 01, 2017 at 02:13:41AM -0700, noman pouigt
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 10:02:31AM +0100, Charles Keepax wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 01:28:15PM -0700, Variksla wrote:
> > > On Apr 21, 2017, at 10:27 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > If I remember correctly this is done the way it is because seq_file has
> > > to iterate
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 10:02:31AM +0100, Charles Keepax wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 01:28:15PM -0700, Variksla wrote:
> > > On Apr 21, 2017, at 10:27 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > If I remember correctly this is done the way it is because seq_file has
> > > to iterate through the entire file
On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 01:28:15PM -0700, Variksla wrote:
>
>
> > On Apr 21, 2017, at 10:27 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> Thanks for the response.
> >
> >> On Sat, Apr 01, 2017 at 02:13:41AM -0700, noman pouigt wrote:
> >> Current registers debugfs file implementation doesn't
On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 01:28:15PM -0700, Variksla wrote:
>
>
> > On Apr 21, 2017, at 10:27 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> Thanks for the response.
> >
> >> On Sat, Apr 01, 2017 at 02:13:41AM -0700, noman pouigt wrote:
> >> Current registers debugfs file implementation doesn't
> >> handle if the
> On Apr 21, 2017, at 10:27 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
Thanks for the response.
>
>> On Sat, Apr 01, 2017 at 02:13:41AM -0700, noman pouigt wrote:
>> Current registers debugfs file implementation doesn't
>> handle if the size exceeds 4k. It just dumps 4k of registers.
>> Fix
> On Apr 21, 2017, at 10:27 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
Thanks for the response.
>
>> On Sat, Apr 01, 2017 at 02:13:41AM -0700, noman pouigt wrote:
>> Current registers debugfs file implementation doesn't
>> handle if the size exceeds 4k. It just dumps 4k of registers.
>> Fix this by using the
On Sat, Apr 01, 2017 at 02:13:41AM -0700, noman pouigt wrote:
> Current registers debugfs file implementation doesn't
> handle if the size exceeds 4k. It just dumps 4k of registers.
> Fix this by using the seq_file which already handles
> the file offset logic instead of reinventing the wheel.
>
On Sat, Apr 01, 2017 at 02:13:41AM -0700, noman pouigt wrote:
> Current registers debugfs file implementation doesn't
> handle if the size exceeds 4k. It just dumps 4k of registers.
> Fix this by using the seq_file which already handles
> the file offset logic instead of reinventing the wheel.
>
Current registers debugfs file implementation doesn't
handle if the size exceeds 4k. It just dumps 4k of registers.
Fix this by using the seq_file which already handles
the file offset logic instead of reinventing the wheel.
I am wondering if there is any issue is doing below which
I am not aware
Current registers debugfs file implementation doesn't
handle if the size exceeds 4k. It just dumps 4k of registers.
Fix this by using the seq_file which already handles
the file offset logic instead of reinventing the wheel.
I am wondering if there is any issue is doing below which
I am not aware
14 matches
Mail list logo