Thomas,
On 09/20/2016 11:51 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Alexandre Torgue wrote:
On 09/14/2016 03:34 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
Well, you just used some function in some context which is not
relevant to
the normal operation. So adding that mask() is just paranoia for no
value.
A gentle reminder ping...
If ".free" callback is not relevant then I 'll remove it from exti domain.
Sorry for discussing about the same thing again (and again) but I just
want to be sure before sending a new version. As you know I have 2
domains: EXTI domain (parent) and stm32-pinctrl-bank domain (child one).
There does it make sens to have ".free" callbacks defined in both domain
(actually if I define one for the child domain I have to define also
".free" callback for parent domain (EXTI) as it is hierarchical) ?
If ".free" have no chance to be called then I will send a new version by
removing .free callbacks (in both domain).
Regards
Alex
I was not talking about the .free callback in general. I was talking about
the masking. But yes, if the thing is otherwise a NOOP, then you can spare
it completely.
Thanks,
tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
