On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 05:11:46PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 08:44:20AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > Dave, Sam:
> >
> > should I just apply a version of Rob's tree that takes the refactoring
> > into account to the dma-mapping tree? That way we should get the right
> > result independent of the merge order.
>
> E.g. something like the patch below:
>
> --
> >From 6ee3d6c39a0c8bc4b58fa601bb4370bdec785be7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]>
> Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 17:09:58 +0100
> Subject: sparc: use DT node full_name in sparc_dma_alloc_resource
>
> The sparc tree already has this change for the pre-refactored code,
> but pulling it into the dma-mapping tree like this should ease
> the merge conflicts a bit.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]>
> ---
> arch/sparc/kernel/ioport.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/sparc/kernel/ioport.c b/arch/sparc/kernel/ioport.c
> index 51c128d80193..baa235652c27 100644
> --- a/arch/sparc/kernel/ioport.c
> +++ b/arch/sparc/kernel/ioport.c
> @@ -252,7 +252,7 @@ unsigned long sparc_dma_alloc_resource(struct device
> *dev, size_t len)
> res = kzalloc(sizeof(*res), GFP_KERNEL);
> if (!res)
> return 0;
> - res->name = dev->of_node->name;
> + res->name = dev->of_node->full_name;
>
> if (allocate_resource(&_sparc_dvma, res, len, _sparc_dvma.start,
> _sparc_dvma.end, PAGE_SIZE, NULL, NULL) != 0) {
Whatever works best for everyone is fine for me, so ack from me.
Sam
