On 07/18/2013 06:13 PM, Frank Schäfer wrote:
Am 17.07.2013 00:57, schrieb Alban Browaeys:Set the config structure pointer to the eeprom data pointer (data, here eedata dereferenced) not the pointer to the pointer to the eeprom data (eedata itself). Signed-off-by: Alban Browaeys <prahal@xxxxxxxxx> --- drivers/media/usb/em28xx/em28xx-i2c.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/drivers/media/usb/em28xx/em28xx-i2c.c b/drivers/media/usb/em28xx/em28xx-i2c.c index 4851cc2..c4ff973 100644 --- a/drivers/media/usb/em28xx/em28xx-i2c.c +++ b/drivers/media/usb/em28xx/em28xx-i2c.c @@ -726,7 +726,7 @@ static int em28xx_i2c_eeprom(struct em28xx *dev, unsigned bus, *eedata = data; *eedata_len = len; - dev_config = (void *)eedata; + dev_config = (void *)*eedata; switch (le16_to_cpu(dev_config->chip_conf) >> 4 & 0x3) { case 0:Signed-off-by: Frank Schäfer <fschaefer.oss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Does that SOB mean you will pick that patch via you tree, or was it only a mistake?
I have thought few times what should I reply to patches which are for modules I am maintaining and I will pick up and pull-request via own tree. Usually I just reply "patch applied" but maybe Signed-off-by is used for same.
regards Antti -- http://palosaari.fi/ -- 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
