Hi Guennadi, On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 03:47, Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@xxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 14 Mar 2011, Pawel Osciak wrote: > >> dma_addr_t may not fit into void* on some architectures. To be safe, make >> vb2_dma_contig_cookie() return a pointer to dma_addr_t and dereference it >> in vb2_dma_contig_plane_paddr() back to dma_addr_t. >> >> Signed-off-by: Pawel Osciak <pawel@xxxxxxxxxx> >> Reported-by: Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xxxxxxxxx> > > Right, it is correct, that this patch is submitted as "2/2" with > "sh_mobile_ceu_camera: Do not call vb2's mem_ops directly" being "1/2." > The only slight difficulty is, that this patch should go directly to > Mauro or via some vb2 tree, if one exists, whereas "1/2" I would normally > take via my tree. Hence the question: should I take them both via my tree, > or should I only take "1/2" and we take care to merge this one after it? > Assuming, there are no objections against this one. I attached 2/2 for reference, please take 1/2 and I will take care to ask Mauro to pull 2/2, unless you prefer to pull both. Thanks, -- Pawel Osciak -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
