Hi Tero,
> Also, I think this patch should be split up in two, as there are two
> issues you are fixing; the bad pointer issue (which I think you only
> fixed partially, also the in->sgl has similar problem), and the missing
> output IVI. Why is this needed btw, I have never faced the requirement
Hi Francis,
This has similar checkpatch issues + being split into multipart message
as your other patch.
Also, I think this patch should be split up in two, as there are two
issues you are fixing; the bad pointer issue (which I think you only
fixed partially, also the in->sgl has similar pro
