On Tuesday 30 March 2010 14:39:12 Wolfram Sang wrote:
> Hans,
>
> > But this just feels like an i2c core thing to me. After remove() is called
> > the core should just set the client data to NULL. If there are drivers that
> > rely on the current behavior, then those drivers should be reviewed fir
Hans,
> But this just feels like an i2c core thing to me. After remove() is called
> the core should just set the client data to NULL. If there are drivers that
> rely on the current behavior, then those drivers should be reviewed first as
> to the reason why they need it.
It will be done this wa
> > > Personally I'd much rather just not bother setting the driver data in
> > > the removal path, it seems unneeded. I had assumed that the subsystem
> > > code cared for some reason when I saw the patch series.
> >
> > Anyway, should this really be necessary, then for the media drivers this
>
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 09:33:58PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 17:09:56 +0100, Hans Verkuil wrote:
> > On Sunday 21 March 2010 15:14:17 Mark Brown wrote:
> > > I agree with this. There are also some use cases where the device data
> > > is actually static (eg, a generic descr
Replying to myself...
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 14:46:55 +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
> I get the feeling that this would be a job for managed resources as
> some drivers already do for I/O ports and IRQs. Managed resources don't
> care about symmetry of allocation and freeing, by design (so it can
> viol
Hi Hans, Mark, Wolfram,
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 17:09:56 +0100, Hans Verkuil wrote:
> On Sunday 21 March 2010 15:14:17 Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 02:46:55PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > > On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 23:02:49 +0100, Hans Verkuil wrote:
> >
> > > > I feel I am missing some
On Sunday 21 March 2010 15:14:17 Mark Brown wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 02:46:55PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 23:02:49 +0100, Hans Verkuil wrote:
>
> > > I feel I am missing something here. Why does clientdata have to be set to
> > > NULL when we are tearing down the d
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 02:46:55PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 23:02:49 +0100, Hans Verkuil wrote:
> > I feel I am missing something here. Why does clientdata have to be set to
> > NULL when we are tearing down the device anyway?
> We're not tearing down the device, that's th
Hi Hans,
On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 23:02:49 +0100, Hans Verkuil wrote:
> On Saturday 20 March 2010 15:12:53 Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > Fix I2C-drivers which missed setting clientdata to NULL before freeing the
> > structure it points to. Also fix drivers which do this _after_ the structure
> > was freed al
Hello Hans,
> > Fix I2C-drivers which missed setting clientdata to NULL before freeing the
> > structure it points to. Also fix drivers which do this _after_ the structure
> > was freed already.
>
> I feel I am missing something here. Why does clientdata have to be set to
> NULL when we are teari
On Saturday 20 March 2010 15:12:53 Wolfram Sang wrote:
> Fix I2C-drivers which missed setting clientdata to NULL before freeing the
> structure it points to. Also fix drivers which do this _after_ the structure
> was freed already.
I feel I am missing something here. Why does clientdata have to be
Fix I2C-drivers which missed setting clientdata to NULL before freeing the
structure it points to. Also fix drivers which do this _after_ the structure
was freed already.
Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang
Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab
---
Found using coccinelle, then reviewed. Full patchset is available
12 matches
Mail list logo
