On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 12:07:33PM +0000, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 12:41:12PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Monday, February 06, 2017 10:04:11 AM Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > > > On Sun, Feb 05, 2017 at 03:45:59PM +0000, Wei Yongjun wrote: > > > > From: Wei Yongjun <weiyongjun1@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > The error return code PTR_ERR(pdev) is always 0 since pdev is > > > > equal to 0 in this error handling case. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Wei Yongjun <weiyongjun1@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > drivers/acpi/arm64/iort.c | 2 +- > > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > It has been reported twice already: > > > > > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9521003/ > > > > > > Rafael, do you expect me to send you a pull request with IORT fixes ? > > > > > > I can't see Dan's patch in linux-acpi patchwork anymore, and there > > > is another fix pending: > > > > > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9507041/ > > > > > > Please let me know how you want to handle them. > > > > I wasn't sure about who was the target maintainer to be honest. > > > > I'd prefer ARM64-specific material to go in via the ARM64 tree, if > > that's possible. > > I CC'ed Catalin and Will so that we can sort this out, I took for > granted that ACPI changes would go via the ACPI tree even if they > are ARM64 specific, I am not sure it makes much sense for them to > go via the arm64 arch tree, anyway it is something to be decided > because the two fixes above have already missed -rc* and I have to > know which way patches should go from now onwards. I have no problem taking arm64 ACPI patches via arm64 if that's what Rafael prefers. However, I won't proactively pick them up like I do for other arm64 patches, so please send me a pull request when you have stuff that you want merged. Will -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
