From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com (Maxime Ripard) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 18:52:55 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] i2c: mv64xxx: Fix compilation breakage In-Reply-To: <20140307172949.GL28943@katana> References: <1394204370-22979-1-git-send-email-maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com> <20140307160836.GM21483@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20140307171932.GU607@lukather> <20140307172949.GL28943@katana> Message-ID: <20140307175255.GW607@lukather> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 06:29:49PM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > > > Another question is... why do we need to check pd->dev.of_node here? > > > If CONFIG_RESET_CONTROLLER is set, we always try to get the reset > > > controller node, so drv_data->rstc is either going to be a valid > > > pointer, or it's going to be an error pointer - neither > > > reset_control_get() nor devm_reset_control_get return NULL. > > > > Hmmm, right. I'll fix this in a later version. > > > > Wolfram, do you want me to respin the patch making use of > > reset_get_optional introduced by Philip in its other mail? > > I think I'd prefer both issues fixed with one patch like in "fixing up > reset controller handling". You mean the of_node check and the use of reset_control_get_optional, right? > And you might want to give a Tested- or Reviewed-by tag to Philipp's > patch if you are going to use it. Yes, I will. I'll only have access to the hardware on monday though, so I won't be able to actually test it before then. Thanks, Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: