linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the gpio tree with the staging tree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 30 Jan 2017 18:02:45 +0100
From:   Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Roman Sommer <roman.sommer@....de>,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the gpio tree with the staging tree

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 03:28:55PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Linus,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the gpio tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   drivers/staging/greybus/gpio.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   1d3dfbd1dd34 ("staging: greybus: fix checkpatch unsigned warnings")
> 
> from the staging tree and commit:
> 
>   2956b5d94a76 ("pinctrl / gpio: Introduce .set_config() callback for GPIO chips")
> 
> from the gpio tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
> with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> complex conflicts.
> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
> 
> diff --cc drivers/staging/greybus/gpio.c
> index 558550cfe687,51384bdde450..000000000000
> --- a/drivers/staging/greybus/gpio.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/greybus/gpio.c
> @@@ -474,17 -474,20 +474,20 @@@ static void gb_gpio_set(struct gpio_chi
>   	gb_gpio_set_value_operation(ggc, (u8)offset, !!value);
>   }
>   
> - static int gb_gpio_set_debounce(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned int offset,
> - 				unsigned int debounce)
>  -static int gb_gpio_set_config(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned offset,
> ++static int gb_gpio_set_config(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned int offset,
> + 			      unsigned long config)
>   {
>   	struct gb_gpio_controller *ggc = gpio_chip_to_gb_gpio_controller(chip);
> - 	u16 usec;
> + 	u32 debounce;
>   
> + 	if (pinconf_to_config_param(config) != PIN_CONFIG_INPUT_DEBOUNCE)
> + 		return -ENOTSUPP;
> + 
> + 	debounce = pinconf_to_config_argument(config);
>   	if (debounce > U16_MAX)
>   		return -EINVAL;
> - 	usec = (u16)debounce;
>   
> - 	return gb_gpio_set_debounce_operation(ggc, (u8)offset, usec);
> + 	return gb_gpio_set_debounce_operation(ggc, (u8)offset, (u16)debounce);
>   }
>   
>   static int gb_gpio_controller_setup(struct gb_gpio_controller *ggc)


Looks good, thanks for this.

greg k-h