On Monday, May 03, 2010 12:00 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sun, May 02, 2010 at 01:00:41PM -0500, H Hartley Sweeten wrote:
>> The macros ReadMReg and WriteMReg are really just private versions of
>> the kernel's readl and writel functions. Use the kernel's functions
>> instead. And since ioremap returns a (void __iomem *) not a (u8 *),
>> change all the uses of dt3155_lbase to reflect this.
>>
>> While here, make dt3155_lbase static since it is only used in the
>> dt3155_drv.c file. Also, remove the global variable dt3155_bbase
>> since it is not used anywhere in the code.
>>
>> Where is makes sense, create a local 'mmio' variable instead of using
>> dt3155_lbase[minor] to make the code more readable.
>>
>> This change also affects the {Read|Write}I2C functions so they are
>> also modified as needed.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: H Hartley Sweeten <hsweeten@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Scott Smedley <ss@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Odd, but no, this still does not apply. I get the following errors:
> patching file drivers/staging/dt3155/dt3155_drv.c
> Hunk #1 succeeded at 75 (offset 11 lines).
> Hunk #2 FAILED at 115.
> Hunk #3 succeeded at 150 (offset 8 lines).
> Hunk #4 succeeded at 184 (offset 8 lines).
> Hunk #5 succeeded at 201 (offset 8 lines).
> Hunk #6 succeeded at 216 (offset 8 lines).
> Hunk #7 succeeded at 227 with fuzz 2 (offset 8 lines).
> Hunk #8 succeeded at 247 with fuzz 2 (offset 8 lines).
> Hunk #9 FAILED at 257.
> Hunk #10 succeeded at 273 with fuzz 2 (offset 8 lines).
> Hunk #11 succeeded at 290 (offset 8 lines).
> Hunk #12 succeeded at 326 with fuzz 2 (offset 8 lines).
> Hunk #13 FAILED at 395.
> Hunk #14 succeeded at 418 with fuzz 2 (offset 8 lines).
> Hunk #15 succeeded at 435 (offset 8 lines).
> Hunk #16 FAILED at 438.
> Hunk #17 FAILED at 456.
> Hunk #18 FAILED at 471.
> Hunk #19 succeeded at 501 (offset 8 lines).
> Hunk #20 succeeded at 510 (offset 8 lines).
> Hunk #21 succeeded at 699 (offset 8 lines).
> Hunk #22 succeeded at 727 (offset 8 lines).
> Hunk #23 succeeded at 929 with fuzz 1 (offset 8 lines).
> Hunk #24 succeeded at 1054 with fuzz 2 (offset 8 lines).
> 6 out of 24 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file drivers/staging/dt3155/dt3155_drv.c.rej
> patching file drivers/staging/dt3155/dt3155_drv.h
> patching file drivers/staging/dt3155/dt3155_io.c
> Hunk #2 FAILED at 77.
> Hunk #3 FAILED at 103.
> Hunk #4 FAILED at 119.
> Hunk #5 FAILED at 134.
> Hunk #6 FAILED at 151.
> 5 out of 6 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file drivers/staging/dt3155/dt3155_io.c.rej
> patching file drivers/staging/dt3155/dt3155_io.h
> Reversed (or previously applied) patch detected! Assume -R? [n]
> Apply anyway? [n]
> Skipping patch.
> 2 out of 2 hunks ignored -- saving rejects to file drivers/staging/dt3155/dt3155_io.h.rej
>
>
> Did you rebase this on the latest linux-next tree?
I did. And I just re-did is again against next-20100503 and it generated the same patch.
But, I just noticed this:
$ git log drivers/staging/dt3155
commit 3c59b4691587b8977cc77ecf07985758a2ba0d97
Merge: 7f1e428 bed46a8
Author: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon May 3 14:17:49 2010 +1000
Merge remote branch 'staging-next/staging-next'
Conflicts:
drivers/staging/arlan/arlan-main.c
drivers/staging/comedi/drivers/cb_das16_cs.c
drivers/staging/cx25821/cx25821-alsa.c
drivers/staging/dt3155/dt3155_drv.c
drivers/staging/netwave/netwave_cs.c
Could the next tree be out of sync with your tree?
Regards,
Hartley
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
