On 8 December 2011 13:46, Vinod Koul <vinod.k...@intel.com> wrote: > On Thu, 2011-12-08 at 16:43 +0900, Kukjin Kim wrote: >> Vinod Koul wrote: >> > >> > On Tue, 2011-12-06 at 16:15 +0530, Tushar Behera wrote: >> > > amba_probe() now calls pm_runtime_get_noresume() and pm_runtime_enable() >> > > for the devices before the device probe is called. Hence we don't need >> > > to call pm_runtime_get_xxx and pm_runtime_enable() in device probe again. >> > > In the same way, since amba_remove() calls the respective pm_runtime >> > > functions, those functions need not be called from device remove. >> > > >> > > This patch fixes following run time error with pl330 driver. >> > > >> > > dma-pl330 dma-pl330.0: Unbalanced pm_runtime_enable! >> > > dma-pl330 dma-pl330.0: failed to get runtime pm >> > > >> > > Signed-off-by: Giridhar Maruthy <giridhar.maru...@linaro.org> >> > > Signed-off-by: Tushar Behera <tushar.beh...@linaro.org> >> > Looks fine to me. Do you want these to go thru slave-dma or samsung >> > tree. >> >> Hi Vinod, >> >> I think, this patch can be sent to upstream via slave-dma tree and >> second one via Samsung tree separately and you can add my and Boojin >> Kim's ack(actually, she replied) on this when you apply. > > Okay, I have applied this one only > Guys, any reason to keep me, the author of the driver, out of loop ? I almost lost this patch, had it not for chance.
Also, I noticed 42bc9cf45939c2 'DMA: PL330: Add DMA_CYCLIC capability' while implements my correction, doesn't carry the ack http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-samsung-soc/msg06386.html While, unlike some, I am not interested in claiming territory by pissing around acks, I would sure like to log my acks if I spent personal time maintaining the code I am supposed to be responsible for. _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
