On Thursday 12 September 2013 04:44 AM, Sarah Sharp wrote:
Hi Kumar,
I was waiting until after the 3.12 merge window to queue this patch, but
Xenia noticed that the xhci_readl functions can completely go away and
be replaced by standard readl/writel operations. She's posted a
patchset to do
Hi Kumar,
I was waiting until after the 3.12 merge window to queue this patch, but
Xenia noticed that the xhci_readl functions can completely go away and
be replaced by standard readl/writel operations. She's posted a
patchset to do that:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-usb=137874983529708=2
I hate
Hi Kumar,
I was waiting until after the 3.12 merge window to queue this patch, but
Xenia noticed that the xhci_readl functions can completely go away and
be replaced by standard readl/writel operations. She's posted a
patchset to do that:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-usbm=137874983529708w=2
I
On Thursday 12 September 2013 04:44 AM, Sarah Sharp wrote:
Hi Kumar,
I was waiting until after the 3.12 merge window to queue this patch, but
Xenia noticed that the xhci_readl functions can completely go away and
be replaced by standard readl/writel operations. She's posted a
patchset to do
On Tuesday 03 September 2013 09:34 PM, Sarah Sharp wrote:
I'm confused. I said the last version of this patch didn't apply
against usb-next, and you should rebase it. Why did you put "No Change"
in the subject prefix?
I miss understood what Dan said. he said me to add no change if there's
no
On Tuesday 03 September 2013 09:34 PM, Sarah Sharp wrote:
I'm confused. I said the last version of this patch didn't apply
against usb-next, and you should rebase it. Why did you put No Change
in the subject prefix?
I miss understood what Dan said. he said me to add no change if there's
no
I'm confused. I said the last version of this patch didn't apply
against usb-next, and you should rebase it. Why did you put "No Change"
in the subject prefix?
On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 11:02:45PM +0530, Kumar Gaurav wrote:
> This patch redefine function xhci_readl. xhci_readl function doesn't
The subject is wrong:
Bad: [PATCH v4:No Change] xHCI:Fixing xhci_readl definition and function call
Good: [PATCH v4] xHCI: Fixing xhci_readl definition and function call
There should be a note under the --- line to say what changed and why
you are resending. It's not helpful to say "No Change&
I'm confused. I said the last version of this patch didn't apply
against usb-next, and you should rebase it. Why did you put No Change
in the subject prefix?
On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 11:02:45PM +0530, Kumar Gaurav wrote:
This patch redefine function xhci_readl. xhci_readl function doesn't use
is wrong:
Bad: [PATCH v4:No Change] xHCI:Fixing xhci_readl definition and function call
Good: [PATCH v4] xHCI: Fixing xhci_readl definition and function call
There should be a note under the --- line to say what changed and why
you are resending. It's not helpful to say No Change because actually
I tried applying this patch on linux-next and it applies well.
i used
git apply --apply
On Saturday 31 August 2013 11:02 PM, Kumar Gaurav wrote:
This patch redefine function xhci_readl. xhci_readl function doesn't use
xhci_hcd argument.
Hence there is no need of keeping it in the
I tried applying this patch on linux-next and it applies well.
i used
git apply --apply
On Saturday 31 August 2013 11:02 PM, Kumar Gaurav wrote:
This patch redefine function xhci_readl. xhci_readl function doesn't use
xhci_hcd argument.
Hence there is no need of keeping it in the
This patch redefine function xhci_readl. xhci_readl function doesn't use
xhci_hcd argument.
Hence there is no need of keeping it in the function arguments.
Redefining this function breaks other functions which calls this function.
This phatch also correct those calls in xhci driver.
This patch redefine function xhci_readl. xhci_readl function doesn't use
xhci_hcd argument.
Hence there is no need of keeping it in the function arguments.
Redefining this function breaks other functions which calls this function.
This phatch also correct those calls in xhci driver.
14 matches
Mail list logo
