Re: [PATCH -next] ACPI/IORT: Fix the error return code in iort_add_smmu_platform_device()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Monday, February 06, 2017 12:07:33 PM Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> [+ Catalin, Will]
> 
> 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.

On x86 the arch-specific ACPI changes go in via the arch tree as a rule, FWIW,
but also I'm sufficiently familiar with x86 (I think) to route them via the ACPI
tree with enough confidence.

Quite honestly, my ARM64 knowledge is not sufficient to decide whether or not
the changes actually make sense, so I would request an ACK from the ARM64
maintainers before taking those changes anyway.

Thanks,
Rafael

--
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



[Index of Archives]     [Linux IBM ACPI]     [Linux Power Management]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux Laptop]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Resources]

  Powered by Linux