1. 18 4月, 2015 1 次提交
    • K
      dmaengine: vdma: Fix compilation warnings · e60841b4
      Kedareswara rao Appana 提交于
      This patch fixes the following compilation warnings.
      In file included from drivers/dma/xilinx/xilinx_vdma.c:26:0:
      include/linux/dmapool.h:18:4: warning: 'struct device' declared inside parameter list
          size_t size, size_t align, size_t allocation);
          ^
      include/linux/dmapool.h:18:4: warning: its scope is only this definition or declaration, which is probably not what you want
      include/linux/dmapool.h:31:7: warning: 'struct device' declared inside parameter list
             size_t size, size_t align, size_t allocation);
             ^
      drivers/dma/xilinx/xilinx_vdma.c: In function 'xilinx_vdma_alloc_chan_resources':
      drivers/dma/xilinx/xilinx_vdma.c:501:20: warning: passing argument 2 of 'dma_pool_create' from incompatible pointer type
        chan->desc_pool = dma_pool_create("xilinx_vdma_desc_pool",
                          ^
      In file included from drivers/dma/xilinx/xilinx_vdma.c:26:0:
      include/linux/dmapool.h:17:18: note: expected 'struct device *' but argument is of type 'struct device *'
       struct dma_pool *dma_pool_create(const char *name, struct device *dev, .
      Signed-off-by: NKedareswara rao Appana <appanad@xilinx.com>
      Signed-off-by: NVinod Koul <vinod.koul@intel.com>
      e60841b4
  2. 02 4月, 2015 8 次提交
  3. 01 4月, 2015 5 次提交
  4. 19 3月, 2015 12 次提交
  5. 18 3月, 2015 1 次提交
  6. 17 3月, 2015 5 次提交
  7. 13 3月, 2015 1 次提交
  8. 06 3月, 2015 3 次提交
  9. 04 3月, 2015 1 次提交
  10. 03 3月, 2015 1 次提交
  11. 23 2月, 2015 2 次提交
    • P
      dmaengine: qcom_bam_dma: Fix error path in probe function · 81ceefa4
      Pramod Gurav 提交于
      Calls tasklet_kill() in error path of the probe function were missing.
      Add the same in error path.
      Signed-off-by: NPramod Gurav <pramod.gurav@smartplayin.com>
      Signed-off-by: NVinod Koul <vinod.koul@intel.com>
      81ceefa4
    • L
      Linux 4.0-rc1 · c517d838
      Linus Torvalds 提交于
      .. after extensive statistical analysis of my G+ polling, I've come to
      the inescapable conclusion that internet polls are bad.
      
      Big surprise.
      
      But "Hurr durr I'ma sheep" trounced "I like online polls" by a 62-to-38%
      margin, in a poll that people weren't even supposed to participate in.
      Who can argue with solid numbers like that? 5,796 votes from people who
      can't even follow the most basic directions?
      
      In contrast, "v4.0" beat out "v3.20" by a slimmer margin of 56-to-44%,
      but with a total of 29,110 votes right now.
      
      Now, arguably, that vote spread is only about 3,200 votes, which is less
      than the almost six thousand votes that the "please ignore" poll got, so
      it could be considered noise.
      
      But hey, I asked, so I'll honor the votes.
      c517d838