2005-09-04 10:33:59

by Russell King

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [patch] Fix compilation in locomo.c

On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 08:30:43AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Do not access children in struct device directly, use
> device_for_each_child helper instead. It fixes compilation.
>
> Signed-off-by: Pavel Machek <[email protected]>

Given up waiting for John/Richard to okay this, applied anyway.

--
Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
maintainer of: 2.6 Serial core


2005-09-06 14:11:42

by Richard Purdie

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [patch] Fix compilation in locomo.c

On Sun, 2005-09-04 at 11:33 +0100, Russell King wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 08:30:43AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Do not access children in struct device directly, use
> > device_for_each_child helper instead. It fixes compilation.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Pavel Machek <[email protected]>
>
> Given up waiting for John/Richard to okay this, applied anyway.

You did get a response from me on 20/8/05 which said:

"Locomo is outside my area of expertise and its not present on the
devices I use/maintain, hence this is something John would have the
definitive opinion on. The patch looks sane to me though."

I suspect John is between email addresses at the moment. Hopefully he'll
be back with us soon.

Richard

2005-09-08 23:31:20

by John Lenz

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [patch] Fix compilation in locomo.c

On Tue, September 6, 2005 9:11 am, Richard Purdie said:
> On Sun, 2005-09-04 at 11:33 +0100, Russell King wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 08:30:43AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
>> > Do not access children in struct device directly, use
>> > device_for_each_child helper instead. It fixes compilation.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Pavel Machek <[email protected]>
>>
>> Given up waiting for John/Richard to okay this, applied anyway.
>
> You did get a response from me on 20/8/05 which said:
>
> "Locomo is outside my area of expertise and its not present on the
> devices I use/maintain, hence this is something John would have the
> definitive opinion on. The patch looks sane to me though."
>
> I suspect John is between email addresses at the moment. Hopefully he'll
> be back with us soon.

Yeah... I'm now back but haven't yet had a chance to look at any patches
or anything that has been floating around. Next week I will look closer
at these patches (even if they have already been applied).

John