All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
diff for duplicates of <1461575235.17131.3.camel@linux.intel.com>

diff --git a/a/1.txt b/N1/1.txt
index 0a0f460..2dcfff7 100644
--- a/a/1.txt
+++ b/N1/1.txt
@@ -15,19 +15,19 @@ On Fri, 2016-04-22 at 16:59 +0300, Jarkko Nikula wrote:
 > > 
 > > Signed-off-by: Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@marvell.com>
 > > ---
-> >   Since v3:
-> >    - use runtime PM rather than rpm in commit msg
-> >    - remove duplicated "(" in commit msg
+> > ? Since v3:
+> > ???- use runtime PM rather than rpm in commit msg
+> > ???- remove duplicated "(" in commit msg
 > > 
-> >   Since v2:
-> >    - s/clk/clock
-> >    - describe why use pm_runtime_put_noidle()
+> > ? Since v2:
+> > ???- s/clk/clock
+> > ???- describe why use pm_runtime_put_noidle()
 > > 
-> >   Since v1:
-> >    - fix commit msg: "not rely on rpm" rather than "rely on rpm"
-> >    - call i2c_dw_plat_prepare_clk after pm_rumtime_disable()
-> >   drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c | 16 ++++++++++------
-> >   1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
+> > ? Since v1:
+> > ???- fix commit msg: "not rely on rpm" rather than "rely on rpm"
+> > ???- call i2c_dw_plat_prepare_clk after pm_rumtime_disable()
+> > ? drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c | 16 ++++++++++------
+> > ? 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
 > > 
 > > diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c
 > > b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c
@@ -36,9 +36,9 @@ On Fri, 2016-04-22 at 16:59 +0300, Jarkko Nikula wrote:
 > > +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c
 > > @@ -253,8 +253,11 @@ static int dw_i2c_plat_probe(struct
 > > platform_device *pdev)
-> >   	}
+> > ??	}
 > > 
-> >   	r = i2c_dw_probe(dev);
+> > ??	r = i2c_dw_probe(dev);
 > > -	if (r && !dev->pm_runtime_disabled)
 > > -		pm_runtime_disable(&pdev->dev);
 > > +	if (r) {
@@ -47,21 +47,21 @@ On Fri, 2016-04-22 at 16:59 +0300, Jarkko Nikula wrote:
 > > +		i2c_dw_plat_prepare_clk(dev, false);
 > > +	}
 > > 
-> >   	return r;
-> >   }
+> > ??	return r;
+> > ? }
 > > @@ -264,15 +267,16 @@ static int dw_i2c_plat_remove(struct
 > > platform_device *pdev)
-> >   	struct dw_i2c_dev *dev = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
+> > ??	struct dw_i2c_dev *dev = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
 > > 
-> >   	pm_runtime_get_sync(&pdev->dev);
+> > ??	pm_runtime_get_sync(&pdev->dev);
 > > +	pm_runtime_dont_use_autosuspend(&pdev->dev);
 > > +	if (!dev->pm_runtime_disabled)
 > > +		pm_runtime_disable(&pdev->dev);
 > > +	pm_runtime_put_noidle(&pdev->dev);
 > > 
-> >   	i2c_del_adapter(&dev->adapter);
+> > ??	i2c_del_adapter(&dev->adapter);
 > > 
-> >   	i2c_dw_disable(dev);
+> > ??	i2c_dw_disable(dev);
 > > 
 > > -	pm_runtime_dont_use_autosuspend(&pdev->dev);
 > > -	pm_runtime_put_sync(&pdev->dev);
@@ -69,45 +69,45 @@ On Fri, 2016-04-22 at 16:59 +0300, Jarkko Nikula wrote:
 > > -		pm_runtime_disable(&pdev->dev);
 > > +	i2c_dw_plat_prepare_clk(dev, false);
 > > 
-> This feels a bit an invasive change to me for unbalanced clock 
-> enable/disable and I noticed this changes semantics how 
+> This feels a bit an invasive change to me for unbalanced clock?
+> enable/disable and I noticed this changes semantics how?
 > drivers/acpi/acpi_lpss.c devices are shutdown when removing the
-> driver. 
+> driver.?
 > Although I didn't notice does it cause any regression.
 > 
 > Before patch:
 > 1. drivers/base/dd.c: __device_release_driver()
->     - pm_runtime_get_sync()
->       -> acpi_device_set_power(D0)
->          acpi_lpss_restore_ctx()
->          dw_i2c_plat_resume()
+> ????- pm_runtime_get_sync()
+> ??????-> acpi_device_set_power(D0)
+> ?????????acpi_lpss_restore_ctx()
+> ?????????dw_i2c_plat_resume()
 > 2. dw_i2c_plat_remove()
->     - pm_runtime_dont_use_autosuspend()
->       pm_runtime_put_sync()
->       -> dw_i2c_plat_suspend()
->          acpi_lpss_save_ctx()
->          acpi_device_set_power(D3)
+> ????- pm_runtime_dont_use_autosuspend()
+> ??????pm_runtime_put_sync()
+> ??????-> dw_i2c_plat_suspend()
+> ?????????acpi_lpss_save_ctx()
+> ?????????acpi_device_set_power(D3)
 > 3. __device_release_driver() continue
->     - dev->pm_domain->dismiss(dev)
->       -> acpi_lpss_dismiss() ... -> acpi_device_set_power(D3)
+> ????- dev->pm_domain->dismiss(dev)
+> ??????-> acpi_lpss_dismiss() ... -> acpi_device_set_power(D3)
 > 
 > After patch:
 > 1. drivers/base/dd.c: __device_release_driver()
->   - pm_runtime_get_sync()
->     -> acpi_device_set_power(D0)
->        acpi_lpss_restore_ctx()
->        dw_i2c_plat_resume()
+> ? - pm_runtime_get_sync()
+> ????-> acpi_device_set_power(D0)
+> ???????acpi_lpss_restore_ctx()
+> ???????dw_i2c_plat_resume()
 > 2. dw_i2c_plat_remove()
->     - pm_runtime_dont_use_autosuspend()
->       pm_runtime_put_noidle()
->       * no device suspending and acpi_lpss_save_ctx()
+> ????- pm_runtime_dont_use_autosuspend()
+> ??????pm_runtime_put_noidle()
+> ??????* no device suspending and acpi_lpss_save_ctx()
 > 3. __device_release_driver() continue
->     - dev->pm_domain->dismiss(dev)
->     -> acpi_lpss_dismiss() ... -> acpi_device_set_power(D3)
->       * powers down here
+> ????- dev->pm_domain->dismiss(dev)
+> ????-> acpi_lpss_dismiss() ... -> acpi_device_set_power(D3)
+> ??????* powers down here
 > 
-> So after patch there is no acpi_lpss_save_ctx() call but I don't see 
-> does it cause any issue here. Maybe it's better to track clock only. 
+> So after patch there is no acpi_lpss_save_ctx() call but I don't see?
+> does it cause any issue here. Maybe it's better to track clock only.?
 > What you think Andy?
 
 Now it looks like two fixes in one patch. From the commit message I
diff --git a/a/content_digest b/N1/content_digest
index f8a00ac..aeb4700 100644
--- a/a/content_digest
+++ b/N1/content_digest
@@ -1,15 +1,9 @@
  "ref\01461314971-5944-1-git-send-email-jszhang@marvell.com\0"
  "ref\0571A2E43.9030109@linux.intel.com\0"
- "From\0Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>\0"
- "Subject\0Re: [PATCH v4] i2c: designware-platdrv: fix unbalanced clk enable and prepare\0"
+ "From\0andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com (Andy Shevchenko)\0"
+ "Subject\0[PATCH v4] i2c: designware-platdrv: fix unbalanced clk enable and prepare\0"
  "Date\0Mon, 25 Apr 2016 12:07:15 +0300\0"
- "To\0Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@linux.intel.com>"
-  Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@marvell.com>
-  mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com
- " wsa@the-dreams.de\0"
- "Cc\0linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org"
-  linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
- " linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org\0"
+ "To\0linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org\0"
  "\00:1\0"
  "b\0"
  "On Fri, 2016-04-22 at 16:59 +0300, Jarkko Nikula wrote:\n"
@@ -29,19 +23,19 @@
  "> > \n"
  "> > Signed-off-by: Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@marvell.com>\n"
  "> > ---\n"
- "> > \302\240 Since v3:\n"
- "> > \302\240\302\240\302\240- use runtime PM rather than rpm in commit msg\n"
- "> > \302\240\302\240\302\240- remove duplicated \"(\" in commit msg\n"
+ "> > ? Since v3:\n"
+ "> > ???- use runtime PM rather than rpm in commit msg\n"
+ "> > ???- remove duplicated \"(\" in commit msg\n"
  "> > \n"
- "> > \302\240 Since v2:\n"
- "> > \302\240\302\240\302\240- s/clk/clock\n"
- "> > \302\240\302\240\302\240- describe why use pm_runtime_put_noidle()\n"
+ "> > ? Since v2:\n"
+ "> > ???- s/clk/clock\n"
+ "> > ???- describe why use pm_runtime_put_noidle()\n"
  "> > \n"
- "> > \302\240 Since v1:\n"
- "> > \302\240\302\240\302\240- fix commit msg: \"not rely on rpm\" rather than \"rely on rpm\"\n"
- "> > \302\240\302\240\302\240- call i2c_dw_plat_prepare_clk after pm_rumtime_disable()\n"
- "> > \302\240 drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c | 16 ++++++++++------\n"
- "> > \302\240 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)\n"
+ "> > ? Since v1:\n"
+ "> > ???- fix commit msg: \"not rely on rpm\" rather than \"rely on rpm\"\n"
+ "> > ???- call i2c_dw_plat_prepare_clk after pm_rumtime_disable()\n"
+ "> > ? drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c | 16 ++++++++++------\n"
+ "> > ? 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)\n"
  "> > \n"
  "> > diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c\n"
  "> > b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c\n"
@@ -50,9 +44,9 @@
  "> > +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c\n"
  "> > @@ -253,8 +253,11 @@ static int dw_i2c_plat_probe(struct\n"
  "> > platform_device *pdev)\n"
- "> > \302\240\302\240\t}\n"
+ "> > ??\t}\n"
  "> > \n"
- "> > \302\240\302\240\tr = i2c_dw_probe(dev);\n"
+ "> > ??\tr = i2c_dw_probe(dev);\n"
  "> > -\tif (r && !dev->pm_runtime_disabled)\n"
  "> > -\t\tpm_runtime_disable(&pdev->dev);\n"
  "> > +\tif (r) {\n"
@@ -61,21 +55,21 @@
  "> > +\t\ti2c_dw_plat_prepare_clk(dev, false);\n"
  "> > +\t}\n"
  "> > \n"
- "> > \302\240\302\240\treturn r;\n"
- "> > \302\240 }\n"
+ "> > ??\treturn r;\n"
+ "> > ? }\n"
  "> > @@ -264,15 +267,16 @@ static int dw_i2c_plat_remove(struct\n"
  "> > platform_device *pdev)\n"
- "> > \302\240\302\240\tstruct dw_i2c_dev *dev = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);\n"
+ "> > ??\tstruct dw_i2c_dev *dev = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);\n"
  "> > \n"
- "> > \302\240\302\240\tpm_runtime_get_sync(&pdev->dev);\n"
+ "> > ??\tpm_runtime_get_sync(&pdev->dev);\n"
  "> > +\tpm_runtime_dont_use_autosuspend(&pdev->dev);\n"
  "> > +\tif (!dev->pm_runtime_disabled)\n"
  "> > +\t\tpm_runtime_disable(&pdev->dev);\n"
  "> > +\tpm_runtime_put_noidle(&pdev->dev);\n"
  "> > \n"
- "> > \302\240\302\240\ti2c_del_adapter(&dev->adapter);\n"
+ "> > ??\ti2c_del_adapter(&dev->adapter);\n"
  "> > \n"
- "> > \302\240\302\240\ti2c_dw_disable(dev);\n"
+ "> > ??\ti2c_dw_disable(dev);\n"
  "> > \n"
  "> > -\tpm_runtime_dont_use_autosuspend(&pdev->dev);\n"
  "> > -\tpm_runtime_put_sync(&pdev->dev);\n"
@@ -83,45 +77,45 @@
  "> > -\t\tpm_runtime_disable(&pdev->dev);\n"
  "> > +\ti2c_dw_plat_prepare_clk(dev, false);\n"
  "> > \n"
- "> This feels a bit an invasive change to me for unbalanced clock\302\240\n"
- "> enable/disable and I noticed this changes semantics how\302\240\n"
+ "> This feels a bit an invasive change to me for unbalanced clock?\n"
+ "> enable/disable and I noticed this changes semantics how?\n"
  "> drivers/acpi/acpi_lpss.c devices are shutdown when removing the\n"
- "> driver.\302\240\n"
+ "> driver.?\n"
  "> Although I didn't notice does it cause any regression.\n"
  "> \n"
  "> Before patch:\n"
  "> 1. drivers/base/dd.c: __device_release_driver()\n"
- "> \302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240- pm_runtime_get_sync()\n"
- "> \302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240-> acpi_device_set_power(D0)\n"
- "> \302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240acpi_lpss_restore_ctx()\n"
- "> \302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240dw_i2c_plat_resume()\n"
+ "> ????- pm_runtime_get_sync()\n"
+ "> ??????-> acpi_device_set_power(D0)\n"
+ "> ?????????acpi_lpss_restore_ctx()\n"
+ "> ?????????dw_i2c_plat_resume()\n"
  "> 2. dw_i2c_plat_remove()\n"
- "> \302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240- pm_runtime_dont_use_autosuspend()\n"
- "> \302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240pm_runtime_put_sync()\n"
- "> \302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240-> dw_i2c_plat_suspend()\n"
- "> \302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240acpi_lpss_save_ctx()\n"
- "> \302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240acpi_device_set_power(D3)\n"
+ "> ????- pm_runtime_dont_use_autosuspend()\n"
+ "> ??????pm_runtime_put_sync()\n"
+ "> ??????-> dw_i2c_plat_suspend()\n"
+ "> ?????????acpi_lpss_save_ctx()\n"
+ "> ?????????acpi_device_set_power(D3)\n"
  "> 3. __device_release_driver() continue\n"
- "> \302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240- dev->pm_domain->dismiss(dev)\n"
- "> \302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240-> acpi_lpss_dismiss() ... -> acpi_device_set_power(D3)\n"
+ "> ????- dev->pm_domain->dismiss(dev)\n"
+ "> ??????-> acpi_lpss_dismiss() ... -> acpi_device_set_power(D3)\n"
  "> \n"
  "> After patch:\n"
  "> 1. drivers/base/dd.c: __device_release_driver()\n"
- "> \302\240 - pm_runtime_get_sync()\n"
- "> \302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240-> acpi_device_set_power(D0)\n"
- "> \302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240acpi_lpss_restore_ctx()\n"
- "> \302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240dw_i2c_plat_resume()\n"
+ "> ? - pm_runtime_get_sync()\n"
+ "> ????-> acpi_device_set_power(D0)\n"
+ "> ???????acpi_lpss_restore_ctx()\n"
+ "> ???????dw_i2c_plat_resume()\n"
  "> 2. dw_i2c_plat_remove()\n"
- "> \302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240- pm_runtime_dont_use_autosuspend()\n"
- "> \302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240pm_runtime_put_noidle()\n"
- "> \302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240* no device suspending and acpi_lpss_save_ctx()\n"
+ "> ????- pm_runtime_dont_use_autosuspend()\n"
+ "> ??????pm_runtime_put_noidle()\n"
+ "> ??????* no device suspending and acpi_lpss_save_ctx()\n"
  "> 3. __device_release_driver() continue\n"
- "> \302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240- dev->pm_domain->dismiss(dev)\n"
- "> \302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240-> acpi_lpss_dismiss() ... -> acpi_device_set_power(D3)\n"
- "> \302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240* powers down here\n"
+ "> ????- dev->pm_domain->dismiss(dev)\n"
+ "> ????-> acpi_lpss_dismiss() ... -> acpi_device_set_power(D3)\n"
+ "> ??????* powers down here\n"
  "> \n"
- "> So after patch there is no acpi_lpss_save_ctx() call but I don't see\302\240\n"
- "> does it cause any issue here. Maybe it's better to track clock only.\302\240\n"
+ "> So after patch there is no acpi_lpss_save_ctx() call but I don't see?\n"
+ "> does it cause any issue here. Maybe it's better to track clock only.?\n"
  "> What you think Andy?\n"
  "\n"
  "Now it looks like two fixes in one patch. From the commit message I\n"
@@ -133,4 +127,4 @@
  "Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>\n"
  Intel Finland Oy
 
-f5d26b3597c09c640b955fcf569e6dfcd959841b5f8864f73eca7071ea346aac
+72b606102bce9c9fc9f51158fe7e57da2b4dfb207dd491fe586a6baf50b0de4b

This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.