> > Right, and I'm not saying it should be, just move the existing logic
> > into the release callback, and the code flow should be the same and we
> > don't end up with an "empty" release callback.
But as Russell says, even if we don't have the empty callback, we still
create the problem shown b
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 03:12:56PM +0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 08:05:20AM +0100, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
> > On 01/20/2015 02:41 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > >On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 11:04:27PM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > >>On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 a
On 01/20/2015 08:12 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 08:05:20AM +0100, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
On 01/20/2015 02:41 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 11:04:27PM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 03:01:42AM +0800, Greg Kroah
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 08:05:20AM +0100, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
> On 01/20/2015 02:41 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> >On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 11:04:27PM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> >>On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 03:01:42AM +0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> >>>On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 0
On 01/20/2015 02:41 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 11:04:27PM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 03:01:42AM +0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 07:55:56PM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:
diff --git a/drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c b/dr
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 11:04:27PM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 03:01:42AM +0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 07:55:56PM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > > diff --git a/drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c b/drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c
> > > index 39d25a8cb1
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 03:01:42AM +0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 07:55:56PM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c b/drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c
> > index 39d25a8cb1ad..15cc5902cf89 100644
> > --- a/drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c
> > +++ b/drivers/i2c/i2c
> > @@ -1184,8 +1183,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(i2c_new_dummy);
> >
> > static void i2c_adapter_dev_release(struct device *dev)
> > {
> > - struct i2c_adapter *adap = to_i2c_adapter(dev);
> > - complete(&adap->dev_released);
> > + /* empty, but the driver core insists we need a release functi
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 07:55:56PM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> Back in the days, sysfs seemed to have refcounting issues and subsystems
> needed a completion to be safe. This is not the case anymore, so I2C can
> get rid of this code. There is noone else besides I2C doing something
> like this cur
On 01/19/2015 07:55 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
[...]
Let's get rid of this code before really nobody knows/understands
anymore what this was for and if it has a subtle use.
Getting rid of this is the right thing, cause it's just not how it should be
done, but unfortunately it is not as simple as
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 07:12:10PM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 07:55:56PM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > Back in the days, sysfs seemed to have refcounting issues and subsystems
> > needed a completion to be safe. This is not the case anymore, so I2C can
> > get
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 07:55:56PM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> Back in the days, sysfs seemed to have refcounting issues and subsystems
> needed a completion to be safe. This is not the case anymore, so I2C can
> get rid of this code. There is noone else besides I2C doing something
> like this cur
Hi Wolfram,
> On Jan 19, 2015, at 20:55 , Wolfram Sang wrote:
>
> Back in the days, sysfs seemed to have refcounting issues and subsystems
> needed a completion to be safe. This is not the case anymore, so I2C can
> get rid of this code. There is noone else besides I2C doing something
> like thi
13 matches
Mail list logo
