Hi Darren,
2015-08-05 14:21 GMT-06:00 Darren Hart <dvhart@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> @@ -1131,14 +1055,10 @@ static int toshiba_usb_three_set(struct toshiba_acpi_dev *dev, u32 state)
>>
>> result = sci_write(dev, SCI_USB_THREE, state);
>> sci_close(dev);
>> - if (result == TOS_FAILURE) {
>> + if (result == TOS_FAILURE)
>> pr_err("ACPI call to set USB 3 failed\n");
>> - return -EIO;
>> - } else if (result == TOS_NOT_SUPPORTED) {
>> + else if (result == TOS_NOT_SUPPORTED)
>> return -ENODEV;
>> - } else if (result == TOS_INPUT_DATA_ERROR) {
>> - return -EIO;
>> - }
>>
>> return (result == TOS_SUCCESS || result == TOS_SUCCESS2) 0 : -EIO;
>
> Hrm... the above line cause patch application failure via git (note the
> missing ? before the '0 : -EIO;'). This never existed upstream so far as
> I can determine.
I've spotted that while compile-checking my changes locally, but I might
have sent you the wrong patch here, I'll double check in the future to avoid
these embarrassments :-(
>
> It applied with some fuzz manually, but I'm concerned about how this
> happened. Did you have a dirty tree when you prepared these patches
> perhaps?
This is weird, all these patches applied cleanly on my local copy, I'll fetch
a new copy from your "for-next" tree and check w/ it.
In the mean time, thanks for your observations, I'll try to keep a closer look
on future patches.
>
> --
> Darren Hart
> Intel Open Source Technology Center
Cheers
Azael
--
-- El mundo apesta y vosotros apestais tambien --
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe platform-driver-x86" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
