On Tuesday 05 April 2005 2:38 pm, Pavel Machek wrote:
> It seems to me that USB stack still needs some u32-vs-pm_message_t
> changes (in rc2-mm1):
>
> Could you apply them?
I see someone changed the requirements for platform_device too ... :)
This patch is mostly NOPs, but many of them tromp on
Hi!
> Actually, please do NOT apply this. It conflicts with other
> patches, which have been in the past few MM releases, have
> also been circulated on linux-usb-devel, and actually address
> some of the bugs which crept in as things have changed around
> the USB stack.
It seems to me that USB
Actually, please do NOT apply this. It conflicts with other
patches, which have been in the past few MM releases, have
also been circulated on linux-usb-devel, and actually address
some of the bugs which crept in as things have changed around
the USB stack.
- Dave
-
To unsubscribe from this list:
Hi!
I thought I'm done with fixing u32 vs. pm_message_t ... unfortunately
that turned out not to be the case as Russel King pointed out. Here
are remaining fixes for USB. [These patches are independend and change
no object code; therefore not numbered].
Please apply,
Signed-off-by: Pavel Machek
Pavel
> fix-pm_message_t-in-generic-code.patch
> fix-u32-vs-pm_message_t-in-usb.patch
> fix-u32-vs-pm_message_t-in-usb-fix.patch
> more-pm_message_t-fixes.patch
> fix-u32-vs-pm_message_t-confusion-in-oss.patch
ke
those patches from Andrew? I think we managed to fix it right in his
tree.
Pavel
> fix-pm_message_t-in-generic-code.patch
> fix-u32-vs-pm_message_t-in-usb.patch
> fix-u32-vs-pm_message_t-in-usb-fix.patch
> more-pm_message_t-fixes.patch
> fix-u32-vs-pm_message_t-confusion
have a boatload of these darn pm_message_t patches floating about. I
don't know if they depend on Greg's stuff or not.
Should I just hose them at him?
fix-pm_message_t-in-generic-code.patch
fix-u32-vs-pm_message_t-in-usb.patch
fix-u32-vs-pm_message_t-in-usb-fix.patch
more-pm_message_t-fixes.pa
On Pá 18-03-05 13:43:36, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 02:08:31PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > > This patch has been spitting warnings:
> > >
> > > drivers/usb/host/uhci-hcd.c:838: warning: initialization from
> > > incompatible pointer type
> > > drivers/usb/host/ohci-p
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 02:08:31PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > This patch has been spitting warnings:
> >
> > drivers/usb/host/uhci-hcd.c:838: warning: initialization from incompatible
> > pointer type
> > drivers/usb/host/ohci-pci.c:191: warning: initialization from incompatible
> >
Hi!
> This patch has been spitting warnings:
>
> drivers/usb/host/uhci-hcd.c:838: warning: initialization from incompatible
> pointer type
> drivers/usb/host/ohci-pci.c:191: warning: initialization from incompatible
> pointer type
>
> Because hc_driver.suspend() takes a u32 as its second arg.
Hi!
> This patch has been spitting warnings:
>
> drivers/usb/host/uhci-hcd.c:838: warning: initialization from incompatible
> pointer type
> drivers/usb/host/ohci-pci.c:191: warning: initialization from incompatible
> pointer type
>
> Because hc_driver.suspend() takes a u32 as its second arg.
Hi!
> > This fixes (part of) u32 vs. pm_message_t confusion in USB. It should
> > cause no code changes. Please apply,
>
> Large portions of this patch are already in my tree (and hence the -mm
> tree.) Care to rediff against the latest -mm and resend the patch?
(Sorry for the delay).
Yes, mos
On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 01:39:35AM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> This fixes (part of) u32 vs. pm_message_t confusion in USB. It should
> cause no code changes. Please apply,
Large portions of this patch are already in my tree (and hence the -mm
tree.) Care to rediff against the latest -mm
Hi!
This fixes (part of) u32 vs. pm_message_t confusion in USB. It should
cause no code changes. Please apply,
Pavel
Signed-off-by: Pavel Machek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- clean-mm/drivers/usb/core/hcd-pci.c 2005-02-15 00:34:40.00
14 matches
Mail list logo
