On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 11:37:20AM +0200, Arun MURTHY wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 07:37:02AM +0200, Arun MURTHY wrote:
> > > Any further comments?
> >
> > I was waiting for you to address all of the previous ones with a new set of
> > patches before burdening you with anything new :)
>
> T
> On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 07:37:02AM +0200, Arun MURTHY wrote:
> > Any further comments?
>
> I was waiting for you to address all of the previous ones with a new set of
> patches before burdening you with anything new :)
There are not any changes in the code, this review was more like just
explai
On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 07:37:02AM +0200, Arun MURTHY wrote:
> Any further comments?
I was waiting for you to address all of the previous ones with a new set
of patches before burdening you with anything new :)
greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> > On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 05:54:08AM +0200, Arun MURTHY wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 07:30:38AM +0200, Arun MURTHY wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 01:35:01PM +0530, Arun Murthy wrote:
> > > > > > > +#include
> > > > > > > +#include
> > > > > > > +#include
> > > > > > > +#i
> On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 05:54:08AM +0200, Arun MURTHY wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 07:30:38AM +0200, Arun MURTHY wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 01:35:01PM +0530, Arun Murthy wrote:
> > > > > > +#include
> > > > > > +#include
> > > > > > +#include
> > > > > > +#include
> > >
On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 05:54:08AM +0200, Arun MURTHY wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 07:30:38AM +0200, Arun MURTHY wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 01:35:01PM +0530, Arun Murthy wrote:
> > > > > +#include
> > > > > +#include
> > > > > +#include
> > > > > +#include
> > > > > +#include
> On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 9:24 AM, Arun MURTHY
> wrote:
> >> On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 07:30:38AM +0200, Arun MURTHY wrote:
> >> > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 01:35:01PM +0530, Arun Murthy wrote:
> >> > > > +#include
> >> > > > +#include
> >> > > > +#include
> >> > > > +#include
> >> > > > +#includ
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 9:24 AM, Arun MURTHY wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 07:30:38AM +0200, Arun MURTHY wrote:
>> > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 01:35:01PM +0530, Arun Murthy wrote:
>> > > > +#include
>> > > > +#include
>> > > > +#include
>> > > > +#include
>> > > > +#include
>> > > > +
>> >
> On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 07:30:38AM +0200, Arun MURTHY wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 01:35:01PM +0530, Arun Murthy wrote:
> > > > +#include
> > > > +#include
> > > > +#include
> > > > +#include
> > > > +#include
> > > > +
> > > > +static struct class *modem_class;
> > >
> > > What's wr
On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 07:30:38AM +0200, Arun MURTHY wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 01:35:01PM +0530, Arun Murthy wrote:
> > > +#include
> > > +#include
> > > +#include
> > > +#include
> > > +#include
> > > +
> > > +static struct class *modem_class;
> >
> > What's wrong with a bus_type i
> >> >> > +int modem_release(struct modem_desc *mdesc) {
> >> >> > + if (!mdesc->release)
> >> >> > + return -EFAULT;
> >> >> > +
> >> >> > + if (modem_is_requested(mdesc)) {
> >> >> > + atomic_dec(&mdesc->mclients->cnt);
> >> >> > + if (atomic_read(&mdesc->use_cnt
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Arun MURTHY wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Arun MURTHY
>> wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 01:35:01PM +0530, Arun Murthy wrote:
>> >> > +#include
>> >> > +#include
>> >> > +#include
>> >> > +#include
>> >> > +#include
>> >> > +
>> >> > +static
> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Arun MURTHY
> wrote:
> >> On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 01:35:01PM +0530, Arun Murthy wrote:
> >> > +#include
> >> > +#include
> >> > +#include
> >> > +#include
> >> > +#include
> >> > +
> >> > +static struct class *modem_class;
> >>
> >> What's wrong with a bus_t
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Arun MURTHY wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 01:35:01PM +0530, Arun Murthy wrote:
>> > +#include
>> > +#include
>> > +#include
>> > +#include
>> > +#include
>> > +
>> > +static struct class *modem_class;
>>
>> What's wrong with a bus_type instead?
>
> Can I k
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 01:35:01PM +0530, Arun Murthy wrote:
> > +#include
> > +#include
> > +#include
> > +#include
> > +#include
> > +
> > +static struct class *modem_class;
>
> What's wrong with a bus_type instead?
Can I know the advantage of using bus_type over class?
>
> > +static i
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 01:35:01PM +0530, Arun Murthy wrote:
> +#include
> +#include
> +#include
> +#include
> +#include
> +
> +static struct class *modem_class;
What's wrong with a bus_type instead?
> +static int __modem_is_requested(struct device *dev, void *data)
> +{
> + struct modem
Adds Modem Access Framework, which allows for registering platform specific
modem access mechanisms. The framework also exposes APIs for client drivers
for getting and releasing access to modem, regardless of the underlying
platform specific access mechanism.
Signed-off-by: Arun Murthy
---
drive
17 matches
Mail list logo