On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 08:26:12PM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote: > On Wednesday 19 of June 2013 18:40:47 Mark Brown wrote: > > - ret = pd->get_signal(plchan->cd); > > + ret = (pd->get_signal)(plchan->cd); > Hmm, that's strange. The former is a completely valid piece of code... I know, hence... > > to get it to build which makes me suspect the compiler a bit as well... ...my comment about suspecting the compiler. > > I was applying this to -next, are there any other dependencies I need or > > anything? > Hmm, I've been testing this on top of my common clock framework and device > tree patches, but I don't think this had any effect. Did you add necessary > clkdev lookups to the clock driver? No, I didn't - that's most likely it, I didn't really investigate. I didn't test the watchdog stuff as the clocks didn't get sent to me. > In Samsung CCF alias notation it looks like this: > + ALIAS(HCLK_DMA1, "dma-pl080s.1", "apb_pclk"), > + ALIAS(HCLK_DMA0, "dma-pl080s.0", "apb_pclk"), > Not sure how hard it will be to add such lookups to the old clock driver, > though. It's pretty much the same providing you know which clock needs to be used. > I will test this applied directly on top of current linux-next when I find > some time, but for now you might check out my v3.11-devel branch on my > github: > https://github.com/tom3q/linux.git Will try to get round to it.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
