On 28 September 2012 16:28, Jassi Brar wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 10:03 AM, Inderpal Singh
> wrote:
>>
>> Now, if we have to check if any client is using the channel and then
>> decide. We will have to traverse the channel list twice once to check
>> the usage and second time to delete the
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 10:03 AM, Inderpal Singh
wrote:
>
> Now, if we have to check if any client is using the channel and then
> decide. We will have to traverse the channel list twice once to check
> the usage and second time to delete the nodes from the list if we go
> ahead with remove.
> The
On 27 September 2012 21:36, Jassi Brar wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 9:11 PM, Inderpal Singh
> wrote:
>> On 27 September 2012 15:18, Vinod Koul wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2012-09-26 at 12:11 +0530, Inderpal Singh wrote:
If we fail pl330_remove while some client is queued, the force unload
w
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 9:11 PM, Inderpal Singh
wrote:
> On 27 September 2012 15:18, Vinod Koul wrote:
>> On Wed, 2012-09-26 at 12:11 +0530, Inderpal Singh wrote:
>>> If we fail pl330_remove while some client is queued, the force unload
>>> will fail and the
>>> force unload will lose its purpose
On 27 September 2012 15:18, Vinod Koul wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-09-26 at 12:11 +0530, Inderpal Singh wrote:
>> If we fail pl330_remove while some client is queued, the force unload
>> will fail and the
>> force unload will lose its purpose.
>> How about conditionally DMA_TERMINATE_ALL and free resour
On Wed, 2012-09-26 at 12:11 +0530, Inderpal Singh wrote:
> If we fail pl330_remove while some client is queued, the force unload
> will fail and the
> force unload will lose its purpose.
> How about conditionally DMA_TERMINATE_ALL and free resources like
> below ?
Why would you want to remove the
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Inderpal Singh
wrote:
> On 27 September 2012 10:35, Jassi Brar wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Inderpal Singh
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Don't you think free_chan_resource should be done __only if__
>>> alloc_chan_resource was successful ?
>>>
>> No, I don't t
On 27 September 2012 10:35, Jassi Brar wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Inderpal Singh
> wrote:
>>
>> Don't you think free_chan_resource should be done __only if__
>> alloc_chan_resource was successful ?
>>
> No, I don't think so. Thanks.
Thanks for quick response.
Please elaborate more
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Inderpal Singh
wrote:
>
> Don't you think free_chan_resource should be done __only if__
> alloc_chan_resource was successful ?
>
No, I don't think so. Thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to maj
On 26 September 2012 22:19, Jassi Brar wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Inderpal Singh
> wrote:
>> On 26 September 2012 15:02, Jassi Brar wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Inderpal Singh
>>> wrote:
>>>
How about conditionally DMA_TERMINATE_ALL and free resources like be
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Inderpal Singh
wrote:
> On 26 September 2012 15:02, Jassi Brar wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Inderpal Singh
>> wrote:
>>
>>> How about conditionally DMA_TERMINATE_ALL and free resources like below ?
>>>
>>> @@ -3017,9 +3017,11 @@ static int __devexi
On 26 September 2012 15:02, Jassi Brar wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Inderpal Singh
> wrote:
>
>> How about conditionally DMA_TERMINATE_ALL and free resources like below ?
>>
>> @@ -3017,9 +3017,11 @@ static int __devexit pl330_remove(struct
>> amba_device *adev)
>> /
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Inderpal Singh
wrote:
> How about conditionally DMA_TERMINATE_ALL and free resources like below ?
>
> @@ -3017,9 +3017,11 @@ static int __devexit pl330_remove(struct
> amba_device *adev)
> /* Remove the channel */
> list_del(&pch->
On 25 September 2012 18:47, Jassi Brar wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Inderpal Singh
> wrote:
>> Since peripheral channel resources are not being allocated at probe,
>> no need to flush the channels and free the resources in remove function.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Inderpal Singh
>> ---
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Inderpal Singh
wrote:
> Since peripheral channel resources are not being allocated at probe,
> no need to flush the channels and free the resources in remove function.
>
> Signed-off-by: Inderpal Singh
> ---
> drivers/dma/pl330.c |8 +---
> 1 file changed
Since peripheral channel resources are not being allocated at probe,
no need to flush the channels and free the resources in remove function.
Signed-off-by: Inderpal Singh
---
drivers/dma/pl330.c |8 +---
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/dma/pl330.c b/
16 matches
Mail list logo
