On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 1:06 AM, Jason Cooper wrote:
> Added LinusW, Gregory and Ezequiel to the email. Guys, can you give
> this a Tested-by before I apply (or Ack for LinusW)?
If the Marvell people are happy I'm happy. But I would like to have
some Tested-by from Sebastian or so? Also I
On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 1:06 AM, Jason Cooper ja...@lakedaemon.net wrote:
Added LinusW, Gregory and Ezequiel to the email. Guys, can you give
this a Tested-by before I apply (or Ack for LinusW)?
If the Marvell people are happy I'm happy. But I would like to have
some Tested-by from Sebastian
Added LinusW, Gregory and Ezequiel to the email. Guys, can you give
this a Tested-by before I apply (or Ack for LinusW)?
thx,
Jason.
On Sat, Mar 09, 2013 at 11:39:31PM +, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Sat, 2013-03-09 at 17:53 -0500, Jason Cooper wrote:
> > > + if (!nr_funcs)
> >
> >
On Sat, 2013-03-09 at 17:53 -0500, Jason Cooper wrote:
> > + if (!nr_funcs)
>
> shouldn't this be:
>
> if (nr_funcs <= 0)
Hm, no. But the loop should terminate if nr_funcs ever reaches zero,
otherwise funcs->num_groups will be off the end of the original array:
diff --git
On Sat, Mar 09, 2013 at 07:02:05PM +, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Sat, 2013-03-09 at 09:49 +0100, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:
> > I don't have a strong opinion on that, but I prefer not to have the list
> > statically in the SoC specific drivers. I think counting the number of
> > unique
David,
I will not be able to test before mid-week ealiest. I added Andrew Lunn to
the list. He and Thomas can test your patch for Kirkwood and Armada XP/370
respectively. I will test on Dove asap.
Sebastian
On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 8:02 PM, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Sat, 2013-03-09 at 09:49
On Sat, 2013-03-09 at 09:49 +0100, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:
> I don't have a strong opinion on that, but I prefer not to have the list
> statically in the SoC specific drivers. I think counting the number of
> unique functions for each SoC specific driver once and verify the above
> heuristic
On 03/08/2013 04:58 PM, David Woodhouse wrote:
I'm just looking through the kernel for krealloc() abuse, and the
'interesting' code in mvebu_pinctrl_build_functions() came to my
attention.
First it allocates an array 'funcs' as follows:
/* we allocate functions for number of pins and
On 03/08/2013 04:58 PM, David Woodhouse wrote:
I'm just looking through the kernel for krealloc() abuse, and the
'interesting' code in mvebu_pinctrl_build_functions() came to my
attention.
First it allocates an array 'funcs' as follows:
/* we allocate functions for number of pins and
On Sat, 2013-03-09 at 09:49 +0100, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:
I don't have a strong opinion on that, but I prefer not to have the list
statically in the SoC specific drivers. I think counting the number of
unique functions for each SoC specific driver once and verify the above
heuristic
David,
I will not be able to test before mid-week ealiest. I added Andrew Lunn to
the list. He and Thomas can test your patch for Kirkwood and Armada XP/370
respectively. I will test on Dove asap.
Sebastian
On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 8:02 PM, David Woodhouse dw...@infradead.org wrote:
On Sat,
On Sat, Mar 09, 2013 at 07:02:05PM +, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Sat, 2013-03-09 at 09:49 +0100, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:
I don't have a strong opinion on that, but I prefer not to have the list
statically in the SoC specific drivers. I think counting the number of
unique functions
On Sat, 2013-03-09 at 17:53 -0500, Jason Cooper wrote:
+ if (!nr_funcs)
shouldn't this be:
if (nr_funcs = 0)
Hm, no. But the loop should terminate if nr_funcs ever reaches zero,
otherwise funcs-num_groups will be off the end of the original array:
diff --git
Added LinusW, Gregory and Ezequiel to the email. Guys, can you give
this a Tested-by before I apply (or Ack for LinusW)?
thx,
Jason.
On Sat, Mar 09, 2013 at 11:39:31PM +, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Sat, 2013-03-09 at 17:53 -0500, Jason Cooper wrote:
+ if (!nr_funcs)
shouldn't
I'm just looking through the kernel for krealloc() abuse, and the
'interesting' code in mvebu_pinctrl_build_functions() came to my
attention.
First it allocates an array 'funcs' as follows:
/* we allocate functions for number of pins and hope
* there are less unique functions
I'm just looking through the kernel for krealloc() abuse, and the
'interesting' code in mvebu_pinctrl_build_functions() came to my
attention.
First it allocates an array 'funcs' as follows:
/* we allocate functions for number of pins and hope
* there are less unique functions
16 matches
Mail list logo
