On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 11:30 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 05:28:50PM +, Vinayak Kale wrote:
>> In Will's existing code, I think he was taking care of 'no IRQ' case
>> by comparing pmu_device->num_resources. Do you think this is not
>> enough and we must enforce the check a
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 05:28:50PM +, Vinayak Kale wrote:
> In Will's existing code, I think he was taking care of 'no IRQ' case
> by comparing pmu_device->num_resources. Do you think this is not
> enough and we must enforce the check after each platform_get_irq()?
> Existing driver code snippe
Hi Marc,
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 6:44 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> [dropped patc...@apm.com]
>
> Vinayak,
>
> Please keep reviewers on CC, as it makes easier to track the changes.
Sure, will do.
>
> On 20/11/13 11:13, Vinayak Kale wrote:
>> Add support for irq registration when pmu interrupt is perc
[dropped patc...@apm.com]
Vinayak,
Please keep reviewers on CC, as it makes easier to track the changes.
On 20/11/13 11:13, Vinayak Kale wrote:
> Add support for irq registration when pmu interrupt is percpu.
>
> Signed-off-by: Vinayak Kale
> Signed-off-by: Tuan Phan
> ---
> arch/arm64/kerne
4 matches
Mail list logo