linux-kernel - linux-next: manual merge of the gpio tree with Linus' 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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200401150345.248e4610@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Wed, 1 Apr 2020 15:03:45 +1100
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc:     Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the gpio tree with Linus' tree

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the gpio tree got a conflict in:

  drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c

between commit:

  8959b304c706 ("gpiolib: Fix irq_disable() semantics")

from Linus' tree and commit:

  a0b66a73785c ("gpio: Rename variable in core APIs")

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/gpio/gpiolib.c
index 00fb91feba70,c2cc437ce831..000000000000
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
@@@ -2304,25 -2443,18 +2443,25 @@@ static void gpiochip_irq_enable(struct 
  
  static void gpiochip_irq_disable(struct irq_data *d)
  {
- 	struct gpio_chip *chip = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(d);
+ 	struct gpio_chip *gc = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(d);
  
 +	/*
 +	 * Since we override .irq_disable() we need to mimic the
 +	 * behaviour of __irq_disable() in irq/chip.c.
 +	 * First call .irq_disable() if it exists, else mimic the
 +	 * behaviour of mask_irq() which calls .irq_mask() if
 +	 * it exists.
 +	 */
- 	if (chip->irq.irq_disable)
- 		chip->irq.irq_disable(d);
- 	else if (chip->irq.chip->irq_mask)
- 		chip->irq.chip->irq_mask(d);
- 	gpiochip_disable_irq(chip, d->hwirq);
+ 	if (gc->irq.irq_disable)
+ 		gc->irq.irq_disable(d);
 -	else
++	else if (gc->irq.chip->irq_mask)
+ 		gc->irq.chip->irq_mask(d);
+ 	gpiochip_disable_irq(gc, d->hwirq);
  }
  
- static void gpiochip_set_irq_hooks(struct gpio_chip *gpiochip)
+ static void gpiochip_set_irq_hooks(struct gpio_chip *gc)
  {
- 	struct irq_chip *irqchip = gpiochip->irq.chip;
+ 	struct irq_chip *irqchip = gc->irq.chip;
  
  	if (!irqchip->irq_request_resources &&
  	    !irqchip->irq_release_resources) {

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped