From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thierry Reding Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] clk: tegra: Fix duplicate const for parent names Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2015 12:19:48 +0200 Message-ID: <20150409101947.GM12103@ulmo> References: <1428499339-29569-1-git-send-email-k.kozlowski@samsung.com> <1428499339-29569-5-git-send-email-k.kozlowski@samsung.com> <20150409100036.GK12103@ulmo> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="L/bWm/e7/ricERqM" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Krzysztof Kozlowski Cc: Alexandre Courbot , Barry Song , Prashant Gaikwad , Mike Turquette , Heiko Stuebner , Stephen Warren , Peter De Schrijver , Stephen Boyd , Tomasz Figa , Ralf Baechle , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Max Filippov , Kukjin Kim , linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, Sylwester Nawrocki , linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org, linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org, linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org --L/bWm/e7/ricERqM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 12:07:59PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > 2015-04-09 12:00 GMT+02:00 Thierry Reding : > > On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 03:22:15PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >> Replace duplicated const keyword for 'emc_parent_clk_names' with proper > >> array of const pointers to const strings. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski > >> --- > >> drivers/clk/tegra/clk-emc.c | 2 +- > >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > This would probably better go in via the Tegra tree since the patch that > > contains this has only made it to linux-next. > > > > Stephen, Mike, any objections to me taking this? >=20 > Applying this without the change for const-ness of parent_names (patch > by Sascha Hauer sent before mine [1]) would introduce a warning - > assign of const to non-const. Any idea to solve it? Immutable branch? Right, I had missed that. Immutable branch would work, though perhaps it'd be easier to just defer this until after v4.1-rc1. The warning shouldn't happen if we leave out this single patch and apply it later on, right? Alternatively the whole series could be deferred until after v4.1-rc1. Thierry --L/bWm/e7/ricERqM Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAABCAAGBQJVJlJDAAoJEN0jrNd/PrOhA/4QAJP3X9ep2pBzKwit0uajH0D9 RQhdOT5HLfdsHrsajslvA0n/XSWlziT56Wbzc4E6BmQNXcGygzI/RnJJi4NQL81i 839nygLxVzcwRwGcTl/Ihgm4p0N+/EuoiWQekAX5ZFZIMpbN9MfjETVNyHE3rU4+ SZhIcwr7J9k/mx4sXZoC/GgHDMstM9Oo6hRaJr+RvC0hdrg7aAHgz+Y/y6whRG8r 1IaDSTnBET18t16t4eAsDyJ96nuITgWp5NEIpjQoaQ4C5AnDYNpnbEV02xVZUx1b 3WFcQqSuXybAYVt6Ku4fN2h/joOH7+QI9WqabjDnBmlci4fyjlw+GbXOr8NaEyMO i3mIQ2ZRk6aEYYKxxtfLIlpcw0ONgvnu+KFtL0+URFqxrXBnm7+Kv/73j65/L+7z rPraKUpzEWqcbfOcV+vBsnuaxjgd8jL7YyyAJpokndL0Ig8xDOfs6QAuzssg/fSc sXD1S2MabaNmvVkCTLvLZORr7fbAKO4pCm2pqei0GMPLbvIVCkFbyrirRF9v6gM+ 5au8HZCCm7qBxYH+Bu918tY40t8/HJbI+rr+qgE+UsQByNthwACDwgPjPwaejzTW q6vgvkHL3/WXLM0fg4R9UjXp6n26CDVJNH0U/Vm8b4hTudEfuIOcXrXdHwD1SEyl 52woHtlf/Rb1lXK4w2he =1GZ5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --L/bWm/e7/ricERqM--