Re: [PATCH v4 6/8] mfd: make mfd_remove_devices() iterate in reverse order
From: Lee Jones <hidden>
Date: 2015-07-06 14:50:48
Also in:
linux-acpi, lkml
On Mon, 06 Jul 2015, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
On Mon, 2015-07-06 at 11:24 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:quoted
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Andy Shevchenko [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
On Wed, 2015-06-24 at 12:31 +0100, Lee Jones wrote:quoted
On Mon, 15 Jun 2015, Andy Shevchenko wrote:quoted
The newly introduced device_for_each_child_reverse() would be used when MFD core removes the device. After this patch applied the devices will be removed in a reversed order. This behaviour is useful when devices have implicit dependency on order, i.e. consider MFD device with serial bus controller, such as SPI, and DMA IP that is attached to serial bus controller: before remove the DMA driver we have to be ensured that no DMA transfers is ongoing and the requested channel are unused. Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko < andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> --- drivers/mfd/mfd-core.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)Applied, thanks.Hmm… Seems kinda mistake. I can't see this applied (and required previous patches 4 and 5) to any of your branch neither in (today's) linux-next.New stuff applied after v4.1 couldn't show up in -next before v4.2 -rc1 was released (which just happened last night)?Might be, I would like to resend new version of my series and that's why I would like to have a branch to check what is already applied. So, if I can't see it does it mean it is brewed in the private repository?
If you have patches that depend on this, they either need to come through my tree, or you have to wait until the next kernel version (which you probably don't want, right?). The alternative is that I unapply this patch and the whole lot can be sucked up by the most appropriate subsystem. -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog