From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: greg@kroah.com (Greg KH)
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 08:28:38 -0700
Subject: [PATCH 06/11] USB: OHCI: Properly handle ohci-exynos suspend
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1310031027190.1287-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
References: <CAKsNYyws1m1kT4KiJ6GFcTSo0cT=cu+0nA0vwx=wu_SuRhAfhA@mail.gmail.com>
 <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1310031027190.1287-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Message-ID: <20131003152838.GB15931@kroah.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 10:31:53AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Oct 2013, manju goudar wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 9:22 PM, Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>wrote:
> > 
> > > On Wed, 2 Oct 2013, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > On Wednesday, October 02, 2013 10:38:58 AM Alan Stern wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 2 Oct 2013, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Maybe it would make sense to cleanup ohci_suspend() first (before
> > > adding
> > > > > > new ohci_suspend() users) and remove unused do_wakeup parameter?
> > > > >
> > > > > Not possible.  The do_wakeup parameter is part of a function prototype
> > > > > shared by other callback routines (such as ehci_suspend()) that _do_
> > > > > use the parameter.
> > > >
> > > > If you mean ohci-pci.c usage (which is currently the only usage of
> > > > ohci_suspend() looking at the latest -next kernel) than it is enough
> > > > to add a simple wrapper for it in ohci-pci.c:
> > > >
> > > > ...
> > > > static int ohci_pci_suspend(struct usb_hcd *hcd, bool do_wakeup)
> > > > {
> > > >       ohci_suspend(hcd);
> > > > }
> > > > ...
> > > >     ohci_pci_hc_driver.pci_suspend = ohci_pci_suspend;
> > > > ...
> > >
> > > Ah, now I see your point.  Yes, it's true; that parameter could be
> > > eliminated.
> > >
> > > Manjunath, would you like to update your patch series to get rid of the
> > > do_wakeup argument to ohci_suspend()?
> > >
> > > Yes I will do. I think we can also rid of ehci_suspend() do_wakeup
> > argument.
> 
> Arrgh!  Manjunath, I was wrong.  I'm sorry to make you do all this
> extra work -- your original patch series was correct.
> 
> Bartlomiej, we both failed to notice that the 1/11 patch in the 
> original series adds a usage of do_wakeup.  Therefore that argument 
> cannot be removed.
> 
> Greg, please ignore Manjunath's V2 series (sent today) and merge the 
> original 11-patch series posted on October 2.

I no longer have these.  Manjunath, can you please resend the "correct"
series that I should apply so that it is obvious which is your latest
version?

thanks,

greg k-h