From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andy Shevchenko Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the usb tree with the uuid tree Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 17:59:13 +0300 Message-ID: <1498748353.22624.231.camel@linux.intel.com> References: <20170629144844.3214d21e@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from mga04.intel.com ([192.55.52.120]:46656 "EHLO mga04.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753393AbdF2O7R (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Jun 2017 10:59:17 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20170629144844.3214d21e@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Stephen Rothwell , Greg KH , Christoph Hellwig Cc: Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Heikki Krogerus On Thu, 2017-06-29 at 14:48 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > I got the following error: > > drivers/usb/typec/ucsi/ucsi_acpi.c: In function 'ucsi_acpi_dsm': > drivers/usb/typec/ucsi/ucsi_acpi.c:33:48: error: passing argument 2 of > 'acpi_evaluate_dsm' from incompatible pointer type [- > Werror=incompatible-pointer-types] >   obj = acpi_evaluate_dsm(ACPI_HANDLE(ua->dev), ua->uuid.b, 1, func, >                                                 ^ > In file included from include/linux/acpi.h:44:0, >                  from drivers/usb/typec/ucsi/ucsi_acpi.c:14: > include/acpi/acpi_bus.h:65:20: note: expected 'const guid_t * {aka > const struct *}' but argument is of type '__u8 * {aka > unsigned char *}' >  union acpi_object *acpi_evaluate_dsm(acpi_handle handle, const guid_t > *guid,   >                     ^ > > I have applied the following merge fix patch (the first hunk is > probably not strictly necessary): It is necessary. The goal of next portion of the UUID related stuff is to get rid of those _le / _be types completely (uuid_be gone I suppose already). Patch itself looks good to me. > - uuid_le uuid; > + guid_t uuid; >  }; >   >  static int ucsi_acpi_dsm(struct ucsi_acpi *ua, int func) >  { >   union acpi_object *obj; >   > - obj = acpi_evaluate_dsm(ACPI_HANDLE(ua->dev), ua->uuid.b, 1, > func, > + obj = acpi_evaluate_dsm(ACPI_HANDLE(ua->dev), &ua->uuid, 1, > func, >   NULL); Can it be one line after all? >   if (!obj) { >   dev_err(ua->dev, "%s: failed to evaluate _DSM %d\n", -- Andy Shevchenko Intel Finland Oy