On 21-09-22, 12:39, Sascha Hauer wrote: > On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 08:53:23AM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote: > > On 20-09-22, 19:10, Dario Binacchi wrote: > > > > How I see it v3 of this patch is perfectly fine and should be taken > > > > instead of this one. I just commented that to v3. > > > > > > > > Not sure if Vinod would take v3, or if you should resend v3 as v6 > > > > instead. If you do, you can add my Acked-by. > > > > > > > > Vinod, please let us know what you prefer. > > > > > > Could you please let me know how to proceed? This patch has been pending for > > > a while and it's a real shame as the change is minimal and fixes a > > > real issue that is > > > still present in the mainline and stable kernels. > > > > Ooops, Somehow this seems to have really slipped. Sorry I owe you an > > apology for this > > > > I am still not sure of this patch yet, lets get it right and merged > > quickly. I will send my review later today > > I just realized that unlike what I said v3 of this patch is still wrong > as it leaves the __init annotation on mxs_dma_init() which is called > from (non __init) mxs_dma_probe(). v3 probably doesn't give a section > mismatch warning because mxs_dma_init() is inlined. > > Really v2 is the one we should take which is at: hmmm, looking at the old revs, that does look sane. My question was why __init change is there, it needs to be documented and if there are two different reasons, add that I agree rev 2 is the right things to do and changelog needs to add why we dropped __init (i dont think this should be a different patchset as that leads to warnings ... > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20220523132247.1429321-1-dario.binacchi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/T/ -- ~Vinod
