Re: [PATCH] FIXUP: CHROMIUM: fix transposed param settings

2017-06-23 Thread Brian Norris
(Kernel mailing lists don't usually like HTML mail. Gmail web interface can get plain text if you really try, in one of the 'compose' options. But it'll always screw up patch formatting, so it's only worth light use) On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 02:04:44PM -0700, Nick Vaccaro wrote: >Hi Brian, >

Re: [PATCH] FIXUP: CHROMIUM: fix transposed param settings

2017-06-23 Thread Brian Norris
(Kernel mailing lists don't usually like HTML mail. Gmail web interface can get plain text if you really try, in one of the 'compose' options. But it'll always screw up patch formatting, so it's only worth light use) On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 02:04:44PM -0700, Nick Vaccaro wrote: >Hi Brian, >

Re: [PATCH] FIXUP: CHROMIUM: fix transposed param settings

2017-06-23 Thread Brian Norris
Hi Nick, When sending patches to kernel mailing lists, we don't use prefixes like "CHROMIUM" -- those only apply to Chrome OS kernel trees, to indicate patches that should be specific to the Chromium (OS) project and not necessarily upstream Linux. Here, you want to follow the patterns used by

Re: [PATCH] FIXUP: CHROMIUM: fix transposed param settings

2017-06-23 Thread Brian Norris
Hi Nick, When sending patches to kernel mailing lists, we don't use prefixes like "CHROMIUM" -- those only apply to Chrome OS kernel trees, to indicate patches that should be specific to the Chromium (OS) project and not necessarily upstream Linux. Here, you want to follow the patterns used by

[PATCH] FIXUP: CHROMIUM: fix transposed param settings

2017-06-22 Thread Nick Vaccaro
The __cros_ec_pwm_get_duty() routine was transposing the insize and outsize fields when calling cros_ec_cmd_xfer_status(). The original code worked without error due to size of the two particular parameter blocks passed to cros_ec_cmd_xfer_status(), so this change is not fixing an actual runtime

[PATCH] FIXUP: CHROMIUM: fix transposed param settings

2017-06-22 Thread Nick Vaccaro
The __cros_ec_pwm_get_duty() routine was transposing the insize and outsize fields when calling cros_ec_cmd_xfer_status(). The original code worked without error due to size of the two particular parameter blocks passed to cros_ec_cmd_xfer_status(), so this change is not fixing an actual runtime