> -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen Warren [mailto:swarren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 11:41 PM > To: Venu Byravarasu > Cc: balbi@xxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-usb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: host: tegra: code clean up > > On 09/12/2012 01:02 AM, Venu Byravarasu wrote: > > As part of code clean up, used devm counterparts for the APIs > > possible. > > Almost all of this patch has already been applied as: Agree. Currently Balbi's tree has bit old ehci-tegra.c. Because of this the patches prepared with linux-next need to be rebased onto this tree and prepare a new patch. My main intention behind pushing this patch was to get all changes of ehci-tegra.c from linux-next into balbi's code base so that I can push the same patch against either balbi's tree or linux-next. > bc2ff98 drivers/usb/host/ehci-tegra.c: use devm_ functions > > (btw, that patch has a much better patch subject than this one) > > The only additions in your patch are shown below, and those changes > should indeed be a separate patch. > > > diff --git a/drivers/usb/host/ehci-tegra.c b/drivers/usb/host/ehci-tegra.c > > index 6223d17..dba9f07 100644 > > --- a/drivers/usb/host/ehci-tegra.c > > +++ b/drivers/usb/host/ehci-tegra.c > > @@ -701,7 +701,7 @@ static int tegra_ehci_probe(struct platform_device > *pdev) > > break; > > default: > > err = -ENODEV; > > - dev_err(&pdev->dev, "unknown usb instance\n"); > > + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "unknown usb inst:%d\n", instance); > > goto fail_io; > > } > > } > > @@ -744,7 +744,7 @@ static int tegra_ehci_probe(struct platform_device > *pdev) > > > > err = usb_add_hcd(hcd, irq, IRQF_SHARED); > > if (err) { > > - dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to add USB HCD\n"); > > + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "usb_add_hcd failed with err 0x%x\n", err); > > goto fail; > > } > > > > @@ -753,7 +753,7 @@ static int tegra_ehci_probe(struct platform_device > *pdev) > > > > /* Don't skip the pm_runtime_forbid call if wakeup isn't working */ > > /* if (!pdata->power_down_on_bus_suspend) */ > > - pm_runtime_forbid(&pdev->dev); > > + pm_runtime_forbid(&pdev->dev); > > pm_runtime_enable(&pdev->dev); > > pm_runtime_put_sync(&pdev->dev); > > return err; > > I'm not sure that last change is worth making; hopefully, you'll fix the > bug the causes the "if" to be commented out, and we can re-enabled it > again. Removing the indent makes it much less obvious which lines of > code the "if" was intended to cover. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
