On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 05:59:49PM +0300, dmitry pervushin wrote:
>
> On ???, 2007-11-20 at 14:51 +, Ben Dooks wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 05:43:42PM +0300, dmitry pervushin wrote:
> > > Hey all,
> > >
> > > The patch below is intended to fix two problems:
> > > - trying to acquire spi
On Втр, 2007-11-20 at 14:51 +, Ben Dooks wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 05:43:42PM +0300, dmitry pervushin wrote:
> > Hey all,
> >
> > The patch below is intended to fix two problems:
> > - trying to acquire spinlock twice on timeout condition
>
> I'll have a look into this, although I thi
On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 05:43:42PM +0300, dmitry pervushin wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> The patch below is intended to fix two problems:
> - trying to acquire spinlock twice on timeout condition
I'll have a look into this, although I think we may be better of
not dropping the spinlock and simply moving
Hey all,
The patch below is intended to fix two problems:
- trying to acquire spinlock twice on timeout condition
- create callback than can be used by platform code to initialize the
chip
Signed-off-by: dmitry pervushin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Index: linux/drivers/net/dm9000.c
==
