2012-06-17 15:15:13

by Otavio Salvador

Subject: [PATCH 1/2] w1: Fix a typo in 'hardware' word

Signed-off-by: Otavio Salvador <[email protected]>
Cc: Evgeniy Polyakov <[email protected]>
---
drivers/w1/w1_int.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/w1/w1_int.c b/drivers/w1/w1_int.c
index 6828835..afa5f5d 100644
--- a/drivers/w1/w1_int.c
+++ b/drivers/w1/w1_int.c
@@ -117,7 +117,7 @@ int w1_add_master_device(struct w1_bus_master *master)
return(-EINVAL);
}
/* While it would be electrically possible to make a device that
- * generated a strong pullup in bit bang mode, only hardare that
+ * generated a strong pullup in bit bang mode, only hardware that
* controls 1-wire time frames are even expected to support a strong
* pullup. w1_io.c would need to support calling set_pullup before
* the last write_bit operation of a w1_write_8 which it currently
--
1.7.10

2012-06-17 15:16:08

by Otavio Salvador

Subject: [PATCH 2/2] pinctrl: pinctrl-mxs: fix implicit declaration of free()

,--[ build failure ]
| ...
| .../pinctrl-mxs.c: In function 'mxs_dt_node_to_map':
| .../pinctrl-mxs.c:140:3: error: implicit declaration of function 'free'
| [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
| .../pinctrl-mxs.c:140:3: warning: incompatible implicit declaration of
| built-in function 'free' [enabled by default]
| ...
`--

Signed-off-by: Otavio Salvador <[email protected]>
Cc: Linus Walleij <[email protected]>
---
drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-mxs.c | 3 +--
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-mxs.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-mxs.c
index afb50ee..85f8dda 100644
--- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-mxs.c
+++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-mxs.c
@@ -136,8 +136,7 @@ static int mxs_dt_node_to_map(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev,
return 0;

free_group:
- if (!purecfg)
- free(group);
+ kfree(group);
free:
kfree(new_map);
return ret;
--
1.7.10

2012-06-17 22:01:33

by Evgeniy Polyakov

Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] w1: Fix a typo in 'hardware' word

On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 12:17:31PM -0300, Otavio Salvador ([email protected]) wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Otavio Salvador <[email protected]>
> Cc: Evgeniy Polyakov <[email protected]>

Looks good, acked-by Evgeniy Polyakov <[email protected]>
Greg, please pull it into your tree or suggest janitorial contact

--
Evgeniy Polyakov

2012-06-17 23:49:18

by Greg KH

Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] w1: Fix a typo in 'hardware' word

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 02:01:28AM +0400, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 12:17:31PM -0300, Otavio Salvador ([email protected]) wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Otavio Salvador <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Evgeniy Polyakov <[email protected]>
>
> Looks good, acked-by Evgeniy Polyakov <[email protected]>
> Greg, please pull it into your tree or suggest janitorial contact

I'll take it, but for "trivial" patches, there is always the trivial
kernel maintainer, which is good for spelling fixes and other stuff like
that.

thanks,

greg k-h

2012-06-18 06:04:48

by Linus Walleij

Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] pinctrl: pinctrl-mxs: fix implicit declaration of free()

On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Otavio Salvador
<[email protected]> wrote:

> ,--[ build failure ]
> | ...
> | .../pinctrl-mxs.c: In function 'mxs_dt_node_to_map':
> | .../pinctrl-mxs.c:140:3: error: implicit declaration of function 'free'
> | ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> | .../pinctrl-mxs.c:140:3: warning: incompatible implicit declaration of
> | ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? built-in function 'free' [enabled by default]
> | ...
> `--
>
> Signed-off-by: Otavio Salvador <[email protected]>
> Cc: Linus Walleij <[email protected]>

Fabio Estevam already sent a patch to fix this, which is merged, thanks
anyway!

But:

> ?free_group:
> - ? ? ? if (!purecfg)
> - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? free(group);
> + ? ? ? kfree(group);

Why did you delete the if (!purecfg) clause?

Yours,
Linus Walleij

2012-06-18 12:18:44

by Otavio Salvador

Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] pinctrl: pinctrl-mxs: fix implicit declaration of free()

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 3:04 AM, Linus Walleij <[email protected]> wrote:
> But:
>
>> ?free_group:
>> - ? ? ? if (!purecfg)
>> - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? free(group);
>> + ? ? ? kfree(group);
>
> Why did you delete the if (!purecfg) clause?

Ouch! I missread it as if where checking for valid group.

Thanks by noticing it.

I will drop it from my tree then.

--
Otavio Salvador? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?O.S. Systems
E-mail: [email protected]? http://www.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854? ? ? ?? ? ? ?http://projetos.ossystems.com.br

2012-06-18 12:27:57

by devendra.aaru

Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] pinctrl: pinctrl-mxs: fix implicit declaration of free()

Hi,

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Linus Walleij
<[email protected]> wrote:
> But:
>
>> ?free_group:
>> - ? ? ? if (!purecfg)
>> - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? free(group);
>> + ? ? ? kfree(group);
>
> Why did you delete the if (!purecfg) clause?
>
One way we can say that as kfreeing of null doesn't affect (panic)
anything and using it
without purecfg may be ok.

but as the code flow says that the group is allocated only when the
purecfg is not true, so i think
its better to follow that way.

> Yours,
> Linus Walleij

Thanks,
Devendra.