On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 09:00:18AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote: > I am having trouble applying this patch to my -next tree. The driver there > (and in the official -next tree) has subtle differences to your version. > What tree is your patch based on ? Can you rebase it to the -next tree and resubmit ? My mistake - I'd pulled the patches from LKML, but it looks like there was a later version of one or two. > Couple of comments below; not necessarily complete, since I can not apply the patch. > I hope Henrik can comment on the merits of the patch itself, ie if it is known to work > with all systems. > > +struct pnp_dev *pdev; > > +struct applesmc_pnp_device *pnp_device; > > + > Please make those variables static. Oops! Yup. > Just wondering ... applesmc_pnp_device doesn't seem to be necessary. > Why not just use the global variable directly if you have it anyway ? This ended up left over as part of an attempt to get rid of the globals... > > + pnp_set_drvdata(dev, applesmc_pnp_device); > > + > > ... but then since you assign it to drvdata, can you get rid of the global variable > and use pnp_get_drvdata() whereever it is needed instead ? But then I ran into some awkward issue and decided to leave it. And then failed to clean everything up. I'll repost without that. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
