On 12/16/2016 06:32 AM, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> Hi Laurent,
>
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 01:23:50PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>>> @@ -1596,7 +1604,6 @@ static void isp_unregister_entities(struct isp_device
>>> *isp) omap3isp_stat_unregister_entities(>isp_af);
>>>
Hi Laurent,
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 01:23:50PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > @@ -1596,7 +1604,6 @@ static void isp_unregister_entities(struct isp_device
> > *isp) omap3isp_stat_unregister_entities(>isp_af);
> > omap3isp_stat_unregister_entities(>isp_hist);
> >
> > -
Hi Skarai,
On 12/15/2016 04:57 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> On Thursday 15 Dec 2016 13:45:25 Sakari Ailus wrote:
>> Hi Laurent,
>>
>> On 12/15/16 13:42, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>>> You can split that part out. The devm_* removal is independent and could
>>> be moved to the beginning of the
On Thursday 15 Dec 2016 13:45:25 Sakari Ailus wrote:
> Hi Laurent,
>
> On 12/15/16 13:42, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > You can split that part out. The devm_* removal is independent and could
> > be moved to the beginning of the series.
>
> Where do you release the memory in that case? In
Hi Laurent,
On 12/15/16 13:42, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> You can split that part out. The devm_* removal is independent and could be
> moved to the beginning of the series.
Where do you release the memory in that case? In driver's remove(), i.e.
this patch would simply move that code to
Hi Sakari,
On Thursday 15 Dec 2016 13:39:56 Sakari Ailus wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 01:23:50PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Saturday 27 Aug 2016 02:43:29 Sakari Ailus wrote:
> >> devm functions are fine for managing resources that are directly related
> >> to the device at hand and
Hi Laurent,
Thanks for the review!
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 01:23:50PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Sakari,
>
> Thank you for the patch.
>
> On Saturday 27 Aug 2016 02:43:29 Sakari Ailus wrote:
> > devm functions are fine for managing resources that are directly related
> > to the device
Hi Sakari,
Thank you for the patch.
On Saturday 27 Aug 2016 02:43:29 Sakari Ailus wrote:
> devm functions are fine for managing resources that are directly related
> to the device at hand and that have no other dependencies. However, a
> process holding a file handle to a device created by a
devm functions are fine for managing resources that are directly related
to the device at hand and that have no other dependencies. However, a
process holding a file handle to a device created by a driver for a device
may result in the file handle left behind after the device is long gone.
This
