I saw a series of patches posted last year by Ambresh which addresses
(at least mostly) changing the return type of clk_mux_get_parent.
Namely, this series changing it to an int from an u8.
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2013-June/179367.html
I am running into this error right now, and noticed that linux-next
still seems to use u8's, as this series seems to have been dropped. I
didn't see anything that suggested that this was on purpose, but I
wanted to find out if there was a reason this was dropped or if it just
got forgotten about (I haven't found a V3 which should have addressed
fixing all the get_parent return values yet).
-rhyland
--
nvpublic
Rhyland Klein <[email protected]> writes:
> I saw a series of patches posted last year by Ambresh which addresses
> (at least mostly) changing the return type of clk_mux_get_parent.
> Namely, this series changing it to an int from an u8.
>
> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2013-June/179367.html
>
> I am running into this error right now, and noticed that linux-next
> still seems to use u8's, as this series seems to have been dropped. I
> didn't see anything that suggested that this was on purpose, but I
> wanted to find out if there was a reason this was dropped or if it just
> got forgotten about (I haven't found a V3 which should have addressed
> fixing all the get_parent return values yet).
I ran into this error myself just now, and it's quite annoying. It
would be great if it got fixed.
--
M?ns Rullg?rd
[email protected]
Rhyland Klein <[email protected]> writes:
> I saw a series of patches posted last year by Ambresh which addresses
> (at least mostly) changing the return type of clk_mux_get_parent.
> Namely, this series changing it to an int from an u8.
>
> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2013-June/179367.html
>
> I am running into this error right now, and noticed that linux-next
> still seems to use u8's, as this series seems to have been dropped. I
> didn't see anything that suggested that this was on purpose, but I
> wanted to find out if there was a reason this was dropped or if it just
> got forgotten about (I haven't found a V3 which should have addressed
> fixing all the get_parent return values yet).
The patch author is apparently no longer at TI (mail bounces). That
might explain a thing or two.
--
M?ns Rullg?rd
[email protected]