Hi Darren,
2015-08-05 17:21 GMT-06:00 Darren Hart <dvhart@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 04:23:49PM -0600, Azael Avalos wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Please verify what I have in "testing", if that's right, then we're good. It has
> already passed my checks and 0day's.
I just checked it, and it's good, sorry for all the fuzz :-)
>
> --
> 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
