On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 11:37 AM Alexandru Ardelean
wrote:
>
> These were found by doing some shell magic:
>
> for file in $(git grep -w devm_iio_device_alloc | cut -d: -f1 | sort | uniq)
> ; do
> if grep 'parent =' $file | grep -v trig | grep -vq devm_; then
>
On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 11:36 AM Alexandru Ardelean
wrote:
>
> The change passes the parent device to the iio_device_alloc() call. This
> also updates the devm_iio_device_alloc() call to consider the device object
> as the parent device by default.
>
> Having it passed like this, should ensure tha
fix checkpatch.pl warning, which is Use of volatile is usually wrong: see
Documentation/process/volatile-considered-harmful.rst
Signed-off-by: MugilRaj
---
drivers/staging/speakup/speakup_decext.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/staging/speakup/speakup_
The change passes the parent device to the iio_device_alloc() call. This
also updates the devm_iio_device_alloc() call to consider the device object
as the parent device by default.
Having it passed like this, should ensure that any IIO device object
already has a device object as parent, allowing
These were obtained by doing a 'git diff | grep \/\*', in the previous diff
to find comments. These needed a bit more manual review, as the semantic
patch isn't great for catching these.
The result is:
/* Initialize Counter device and driver data */
/* Initialize IIO device */
This assignment is the more peculiar of the bunch as it assigns the parent
of the platform-device's device (i.e. pdev->dev.parent) as the IIO device's
parent.
It's unclear whether this is intentional or not.
Hence it is in it's own patch.
Signed-off-by: Alexandru Ardelean
---
drivers/iio/light/
These were found by doing some shell magic:
for file in $(git grep -w devm_iio_device_alloc | cut -d: -f1 | sort | uniq) ;
do
if grep 'parent =' $file | grep -v trig | grep -vq devm_; then
echo "$file -> $(grep "parent =" $file)"
fi
done
---
Th
Hello,
MugilRaj, le ven. 22 mai 2020 14:46:28 +0530, a ecrit:
> fix checkpatch.pl warning, which is Use of volatile is usually wrong: see
> Documentation/process/volatile-considered-harmful.rst
Yes, but the proper fix is usually not to just remove the volatile
qualifier, which will not fix anythi
On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 02:46:28PM +0530, MugilRaj wrote:
> fix checkpatch.pl warning, which is Use of volatile is usually wrong: see
> Documentation/process/volatile-considered-harmful.rst
> Signed-off-by: MugilRaj
As Samuel said, you can't "just remove this", otherwise it would have
been done a
Em Thu, 21 May 2020 11:00:19 +0300
Andy Shevchenko escreveu:
> +Cc: Heikki (swnode expert)
>
> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 2:19 PM Mauro Carvalho Chehab
> wrote:
> > Em Wed, 20 May 2020 11:26:08 +0300
> > Sakari Ailus escreveu:
>
> ...
>
> > As I said, the problem is not probing the sensor via
On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 02:46:28PM +0530, MugilRaj wrote:
> fix checkpatch.pl warning, which is Use of volatile is usually wrong: see
> Documentation/process/volatile-considered-harmful.rst
> Signed-off-by: MugilRaj
Please put a blank before the Signed-off-by line.
Probably there should be a spa
On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 08:45:31PM -0400, Mitchell Tasman wrote:
> In several cases where a pointer marked as __user is
> (intentionally) assigned or passed to a non-marked target,
> cast to the target pointer type with a __force directive
> to quiet warnings from sparse.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mitche
tree/branch:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/driver-core.git
driver-core-testing
branch HEAD: 2cd38fd15e4ebcfe917a443734820269f8b5ba2b driver core: Remove
unnecessary is_fwnode_dev variable in device_add()
elapsed time: 1454m
configs tested: 86
configs skipped: 1
The
tree/branch:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/driver-core.git
driver-core-linus
branch HEAD: 4ef12f7198023c09ad6d25b652bd8748c965c7fa kobject: Make sure the
parent does not get released before its children
elapsed time: 1454m
configs tested: 86
configs skipped: 1
The f
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 08:39:02PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 05:22:05PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 11:15 AM Dan Carpenter
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 11:42:55AM +0800, dinghao@zju.edu.cn wrote:
> > > > Hi, Dan,
>
On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 03:10:31PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 08:39:02PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 05:22:05PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 11:15 AM Dan Carpenter
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, May 21,
On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 04:23:18PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 03:10:31PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 08:39:02PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 05:22:05PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > On Thu, May 21, 2020 a
Joe Perches, le ven. 22 mai 2020 09:36:05 -0700, a ecrit:
> On Fri, 2020-05-22 at 13:34 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 02:46:28PM +0530, MugilRaj wrote:
> > > fix checkpatch.pl warning, which is Use of volatile is usually wrong: see
> > > Documentation/process/volatile-cons
On Fri, 2020-05-22 at 19:13 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Joe Perches, le ven. 22 mai 2020 09:36:05 -0700, a ecrit:
> > On Fri, 2020-05-22 at 13:34 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 02:46:28PM +0530, MugilRaj wrote:
> > > > fix checkpatch.pl warning, which is Use of volati
Joe Perches, le ven. 22 mai 2020 10:22:03 -0700, a ecrit:
> > Put another way: I don't think putting any hint here would help, on the
> > contrary, somebody has to really look at what protection is needed,
> > without getting influenced by rules-of-thumb.
>
> checkpatch newbies/robots will submit
I did *really look* at the code when I was reviewing this patch. :P
regards,
dan carpenter
___
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
On Fri, 2020-05-22 at 13:34 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 02:46:28PM +0530, MugilRaj wrote:
> > fix checkpatch.pl warning, which is Use of volatile is usually wrong: see
> > Documentation/process/volatile-considered-harmful.rst
> > Signed-off-by: MugilRaj
>
> Please put a
22 matches
Mail list logo
