On 2015년 10월 26일 17:23, Greg KH wrote:
On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 11:08:43AM +0900, glen lee wrote:
On 2015년 10월 25일 10:29, Greg KH wrote:
On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 02:28:18PM +0900, Glen Lee wrote:
Use netdev private member wilc instead of g_linux_wlan and Change argument wilc
with dev in the function request_threaded_irq to pass back to handler
the function isr_uh_routine.
Signed-off-by: Glen Lee <glen....@atmel.com>
---
drivers/staging/wilc1000/linux_wlan.c | 9 +++++++--
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/staging/wilc1000/linux_wlan.c
b/drivers/staging/wilc1000/linux_wlan.c
index b036b96..7b0614d 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/wilc1000/linux_wlan.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/wilc1000/linux_wlan.c
@@ -229,10 +229,15 @@ static int dev_state_ev_handler(struct notifier_block
*this, unsigned long event
#if (defined WILC_SPI) || (defined WILC_SDIO_IRQ_GPIO)
static irqreturn_t isr_uh_routine(int irq, void *user_data)
{
+ perInterface_wlan_t *nic;
+ struct wilc *wl;
+
+ nic = netdev_priv(usedata);
This patch breaks the build, which means you didn't even test build the
series :(
Hi greg,
I built every patches I'v posted and also there is no build error for this
patch.
I don't believe you, just look at the lines, it's obviously incorrect.
Would you please reconsider this patch again?
Why would I ever accept a patch that is obviously wrong? I would be a
horrible subsystem maintainer, and you would not want me to merge an
obviously broken patch from someone else into this driver, breaking it,
right?
True. Sorry for wasting your time. I didn't look at the code carefully but just
built on SDIO not SPI as usual.
I should have been more careful about this.
Again, sorry for the noise. I'll do this patches again.
I have no idea why you would expect me to ever accept this patch as-is.
greg k-h
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
