[PATCH] missed s/u32/pm_message_t/ in arch/ppc/syslib/ocp.c

[PATCH] missed s/u32/pm_message_t/ in arch/ppc/syslib/ocp.c

[viro]

Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
----
diff -urN RC13-git5-mga/arch/ppc/syslib/ocp.c RC13-git5-ppc44x-pm/arch/ppc/syslib/ocp.c
--- RC13-git5-mga/arch/ppc/syslib/ocp.c	2005-08-28 23:09:40.000000000 -0400
+++ RC13-git5-ppc44x-pm/arch/ppc/syslib/ocp.c	2005-09-05 16:41:17.000000000 -0400
@@ -165,7 +165,7 @@
 }
 
 static int
-ocp_device_suspend(struct device *dev, u32 state)
+ocp_device_suspend(struct device *dev, pm_message_t state)
 {
 	struct ocp_device *ocp_dev = to_ocp_dev(dev);
 	struct ocp_driver *ocp_drv = to_ocp_drv(dev->driver);

Re: [PATCH] missed s/u32/pm_message_t/ in arch/ppc/syslib/ocp.c

[Eugene Surovegin]

On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 01:44:23AM +0100, viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
> ----
> diff -urN RC13-git5-mga/arch/ppc/syslib/ocp.c RC13-git5-ppc44x-pm/arch/ppc/syslib/ocp.c
> --- RC13-git5-mga/arch/ppc/syslib/ocp.c	2005-08-28 23:09:40.000000000 -0400
> +++ RC13-git5-ppc44x-pm/arch/ppc/syslib/ocp.c	2005-09-05 16:41:17.000000000 -0400
> @@ -165,7 +165,7 @@
>  }
>  
>  static int
> -ocp_device_suspend(struct device *dev, u32 state)
> +ocp_device_suspend(struct device *dev, pm_message_t state)
>  {
>  	struct ocp_device *ocp_dev = to_ocp_dev(dev);
>  	struct ocp_driver *ocp_drv = to_ocp_drv(dev->driver);
> _______________________________________________
> Linuxppc-dev mailing list
> Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
> https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev

Identical fix is already in -mm

Re: [PATCH] missed s/u32/pm_message_t/ in arch/ppc/syslib/ocp.c

[viro]

On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 07:15:35PM -0700, Eugene Surovegin wrote:
 
> Identical fix is already in -mm

Then it really should go upstream; obvious fixes like that are not
something that needs filtration...

Re: [PATCH] missed s/u32/pm_message_t/ in arch/ppc/syslib/ocp.c

[Eugene Surovegin]

On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 03:27:33AM +0100, viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 07:15:35PM -0700, Eugene Surovegin wrote:
>  
> > Identical fix is already in -mm
> 
> Then it really should go upstream; obvious fixes like that are not
> something that needs filtration...

Well, it's not up to me, really - I just follow our usual patch 
submit procedure (i.e. send everything to Andrew). However, patch was 
sent today in the morning (PDT), so I think Andrew will forward it to 
Linus soon.

-- 
Eugene