Hi Bjorn/Rafael,
Let me redo the patch with enum then. At least, that's more clear to
everyone.
Thanks,
Suravee
On 10/19/15 21:17, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 06:53:28PM -0500, Suravee Suthikulanit wrote:
Bjorn / Rafael,
On 10/13/2015 10:52 AM, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 06:53:28PM -0500, Suravee Suthikulanit wrote:
> Bjorn / Rafael,
>
> On 10/13/2015 10:52 AM, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
> >
> >On 09/14/2015 09:34 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> >>[..]
> >>I think acpi_check_dma_coherency() is better, but only slightly. It
> >>still doesn't g
Bjorn / Rafael,
On 10/13/2015 10:52 AM, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
On 09/14/2015 09:34 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
[..]
I think acpi_check_dma_coherency() is better, but only slightly. It
still doesn't give a hint about the *sense* of the return value. I
think it'd be easier to read if there
Hi Bjorn,
Thanks for your feedback. And sorry for late response. Some how I didn't
see this earlier. Please see my comments below.
On 09/14/2015 09:34 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
[..]
So, in order to simplify the function, this patch renames acpi_check_dma()
to acpi_check_dma_coherency() to cle
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 08:54:37PM +0700, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
> The original name of acpi_check_dma() function does not clearly tell what
> exactly it is checking. Also, returning two boolean values (one to indicate
> device is DMA capability, and the other to inidicate device coherency
s
5 matches
Mail list logo
