On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 04:13:01PM -0800, Christopher Hoover wrote:
> [ Sorry; this time without patch mangling ... ]
>
>
> Dereferencing hcd.pdev will always oops with SA-. It has to be
> treated as a cookie, not a pointer in any common OHCI HCD code.
>
> Apparently we need a clean way to
David, any opinions on this patch?
David?
Sorry -- I had no problems with it, as I recall,
that's why I didn't comment ... :)
- Dave
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by: See the NEW Palm
Tungsten T handheld. Power & Color in a compa
> Why? What is that needed for? Oh wait, you don't have a pci device,
> right?
Correct.
>So where in the device tree does the sa111 controller show up?
>What type of bus is it on?
rmk and pat worked this out:
/sys/bus/system/devices/SA0
/sys/bus/RAB/devices/0400
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 04:13:01PM -0800, Christopher Hoover wrote:
> [ Sorry; this time without patch mangling ... ]
>
>
> Dereferencing hcd.pdev will always oops with SA-. It has to be
> treated as a cookie, not a pointer in any common OHCI HCD code.
>
> Apparently we need a clean way to
[ Sorry; this time without patch mangling ... ]
Dereferencing hcd.pdev will always oops with SA-. It has to be
treated as a cookie, not a pointer in any common OHCI HCD code.
Apparently we need a clean way to go from struct device * to struct
ohci_hcd *. I added dev_to_ohci that does the o
Dereferencing hcd.pdev will always oops with SA-. It has to be
treated as a cookie, not a pointer in any common OHCI HCD code.
Apparently we need a clean way to go from struct device * to struct
ohci_hcd *. I added dev_to_ohci that does the obvious thing and added
separate implementations f
