On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 10:10:53AM -0600, Thor Thayer wrote:
> Understood. I did get a conditional ACK from Rob Herring on the DT portion
> of the patch from the last revision (as long as I made the changes he
> suggested which I did in this patch). There may be other comments though.
Ah, and I wasn't precise: there are also arch/arm/mach-socfpga/ changes
which I'm going to take through the EDAC tree *only* if ARM people ack
them.
And by "ARM people" and from looking at get_maintainer output I mean
Dinh and he's on CC ...
> Those are the only cases of irq but it would be good to be alerted if that
> is not the case. I will add. Thanks!
Yeah, it is a "just in case" thing - it might just as well be too
cautious and completely unnecessary so your decision.
> Yes, thanks. I was using the xgene code as an example but I missed the
> unregister (although it looks like the xgene's unregister affects sysfs
> instead of debugfs). I'm also moving the debugfs creation to the end of the
> probe since it is not critical and avoids an error path if creation fails.
>
> I'll make the debugfs_remove_recursive() change as a separate patch in my
> next version.
Good, thanks!
Also, if something's not right in drivers/edac/debugfs.c wrt usability
and so on, feel free to propose changes. I've extracted it there because
I didn't want every driver to reinvent the wheel.
Thanks.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
