[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2024061436-twister-survival-a05c@gregkh>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2024 08:50:08 +0200
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham@...asonboard.com>
Cc: Umang Jain <umang.jain@...asonboard.com>,
Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@...adcom.com>,
linux-rpi-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Broadcom internal kernel review list <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>,
Stefan Wahren <wahrenst@....net>,
Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
Dave Stevenson <dave.stevenson@...pberrypi.org>,
detule <ogjoneski@...il.com>,
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>,
"moderated list:BROADCOM BCM2711/BCM2835 ARM ARCHITECTURE" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"open list:STAGING SUBSYSTEM" <linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: vc04_services: vchiq_arm: Fix initialisation
check
On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 08:41:46PM +0100, Kieran Bingham wrote:
> The vchiq_state used to be obtained through an accessor
> which would validate that the VCHIQ had been initialised
> correctly with the remote.
>
> In commit 42a2f6664e18 ("staging: vc04_services: Move global g_state to
> vchiq_state") the global state was moved to the vchiq_mgnt structures
> stored as a vchiq instance specific context. This conversion removed the
> helpers and instead replaced users of this helper with the assumption
> that the state is always available and the remote connected.
>
> Fix this broken assumption by re-introducing the logic that was lost
> during the conversion.
>
> Fixes: 42a2f6664e18 ("staging: vc04_services: Move global g_state to vchiq_state")
> Signed-off-by: Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham@...asonboard.com>
> ---
> .../staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c | 4 ++--
> .../staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_core.h | 5 +++++
> .../staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_dev.c | 7 ++++++-
> 3 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
You sent 2 different patches here, both with the same subject, which one
is correct?
Please send a v2 so that I know what to apply, I've dropped this one
from my queue now, thanks.
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists