On Thu, 2019-12-05 at 14:38 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> The subject contains a couple typos: it's missing "of" and it's
> missing the "n" on "down".
Noted >
> On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 12:47:41PM +0100, Nicolas Saenz Julienne wrote:
> > The function now is safe to use while expecting a 64bit valu
The subject contains a couple typos: it's missing "of" and it's
missing the "n" on "down".
On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 12:47:41PM +0100, Nicolas Saenz Julienne wrote:
> The function now is safe to use while expecting a 64bit value. Use it
> where relevant.
Please include the function names ("roundup_
Hi Rob,
On Tue, 2019-12-03 at 09:53 -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 5:48 AM Nicolas Saenz Julienne
> wrote:
> > The function now is safe to use while expecting a 64bit value. Use it
> > where relevant.
>
> What was wrong with the existing code? This is missing some context.
Y
On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 5:48 AM Nicolas Saenz Julienne
wrote:
>
> The function now is safe to use while expecting a 64bit value. Use it
> where relevant.
What was wrong with the existing code? This is missing some context.
> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Saenz Julienne
> ---
> drivers/acpi/arm64/iort.
The function now is safe to use while expecting a 64bit value. Use it
where relevant.
Signed-off-by: Nicolas Saenz Julienne
---
drivers/acpi/arm64/iort.c| 2 +-
drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx4/en_clock.c| 3 ++-
drivers/of/device.c | 3
