* Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [110118 15:41]: > On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 01:05:49PM +0100, Jean Pihet wrote: > > Dave, Russell, > > > > On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Dave Martin <dave.martin@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > One way to work around this is would be to make omap_sram_push() a macro: > > > > > > #define omap_sram_push(funcp, size) \ > > > Â Â(typeof(funcp))_do_omap_sram_push((void *)(funcp), size) > > > > > > ... where the definition of _do_omap_sram_push() is the same is the > > > existing definition of omap_sram_push(). ÂProviding > > > _do_omap_sram_push() is not called directly, this should now be > > > type-safe. > > > > > Ok I reworked the patch from your suggestions. Indeed a few functions > > types mismatch have been spotted and corrected using the fncpy API. > > > > New patch sent as '[PATCH v2] OMAP: use fncpy to copy the PM code > > functions to SRAM'. > > Looks good, thanks. Next problem to sort out is who's taking the > patches... You can take them but we should have at least Kevin test and ack them. Tony -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
