From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: soren.brinkmann@xilinx.com (=?utf-8?B?U8O2cmVu?= Brinkmann) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 09:33:15 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 2/2] can: xilinx: fix bug in bus error handling In-Reply-To: <1445489163-11045-2-git-send-email-appanad@xilinx.com> References: <1445489163-11045-1-git-send-email-appanad@xilinx.com> <1445489163-11045-2-git-send-email-appanad@xilinx.com> Message-ID: <20151022163315.GI5257@xsjsorenbubuntu> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, 2015-10-22 at 10:16AM +0530, Kedareswara rao Appana wrote: > Simply resetting the peripheral on bus off condition is not enough, > Because we also need to re-initialize the whole device. > This patch fixes this issue. > > Signed-off-by: Kedareswara rao Appana > --- > drivers/net/can/xilinx_can.c | 7 +++++-- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/net/can/xilinx_can.c b/drivers/net/can/xilinx_can.c > index 055d6f3..9aeb85f 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/can/xilinx_can.c > +++ b/drivers/net/can/xilinx_can.c > @@ -529,6 +529,8 @@ static int xcan_rx(struct net_device *ndev) > return 1; > } > > +static void xcan_chip_stop(struct net_device *ndev); Isn't it possible to move the function and avoid the forward declaration? S?ren