From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-ea0-f170.google.com ([209.85.215.170]:53459 "EHLO mail-ea0-f170.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932427Ab3GRQfV (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Jul 2013 12:35:21 -0400 Received: by mail-ea0-f170.google.com with SMTP id h10so1867839eaj.29 for ; Thu, 18 Jul 2013 09:35:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <51E819CD.8060400@googlemail.com> Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 18:37:33 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Frank_Sch=E4fer?= MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Antti Palosaari CC: Alban Browaeys , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , linux-media@vger.kernel.org, Alban Browaeys Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] [media] em28xx: fix assignment of the eeprom data. References: <1374015476-26197-1-git-send-email-prahal@yahoo.com> <51E80622.3020803@googlemail.com> <51E80F10.8030406@iki.fi> In-Reply-To: <51E80F10.8030406@iki.fi> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Am 18.07.2013 17:51, schrieb Antti Palosaari: > On 07/18/2013 06:13 PM, Frank Schäfer wrote: >> Am 17.07.2013 00:57, schrieb Alban Browaeys: >>> Set the config structure pointer to the eeprom data pointer (data, >>> here eedata dereferenced) not the pointer to the pointer to >>> the eeprom data (eedata itself). >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Alban Browaeys >>> --- >>> drivers/media/usb/em28xx/em28xx-i2c.c | 2 +- >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/media/usb/em28xx/em28xx-i2c.c >>> b/drivers/media/usb/em28xx/em28xx-i2c.c >>> index 4851cc2..c4ff973 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/media/usb/em28xx/em28xx-i2c.c >>> +++ b/drivers/media/usb/em28xx/em28xx-i2c.c >>> @@ -726,7 +726,7 @@ static int em28xx_i2c_eeprom(struct em28xx *dev, >>> unsigned bus, >>> >>> *eedata = data; >>> *eedata_len = len; >>> - dev_config = (void *)eedata; >>> + dev_config = (void *)*eedata; >>> >>> switch (le16_to_cpu(dev_config->chip_conf) >> 4 & 0x3) { >>> case 0: >> Signed-off-by: Frank Schäfer > > Does that SOB mean you will pick that patch via you tree, or was it > only a mistake? No, I don't have a public tree. Following the official rules (SubmittingPatches) strictly, it should indeed have been Acked-by instead, sorry. > > I have thought few times what should I reply to patches which are for > modules I am maintaining and I will pick up and pull-request via own > tree. Usually I just reply "patch applied" but maybe Signed-off-by is > used for same. The problem is, that although there are rules, things like this are handled slightly differently from project to project. (Coding style is the other example ;) ) I'm always trying to adapt myself to the habits of a project, but sometimes I make a mistake (especially when switching between multiple projects). Regards, Frank > > regards > Antti >