usb/xhci: unify parameter of xhci_msi_irq
Subsystems (2)
PATCH 1/1 usb/xhci: unify parameter of xhci_msi_irq
According to Felipe and Alan's comments the second parameter of irq handler should be 'void *' not a specific structure pointer. So change it.
--- drivers/usb/host/xhci-ring.c | 2 +- drivers/usb/host/xhci.c | 4 ++-- drivers/usb/host/xhci.h | 2 +- 3 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
drivers/usb/host/xhci-ring.c +1 -1
@@ -2396,7 +2396,7 @@ hw_died:return IRQ_HANDLED ; } -irqreturn_t xhci_msi_irq (int irq,struct usb_hcd *hcd) +irqreturn_t xhci_msi_irq (int irq,void *hcd) {return xhci_irq (hcd); }
drivers/usb/host/xhci.c +2 -2
@@ -204,7 +204,7 @@ static int xhci_setup_msi(struct xhci_hcd *xhci)return ret; } - ret =request_irq (pdev->irq, (irq_handler_t )xhci_msi_irq, + ret =request_irq (pdev->irq, xhci_msi_irq,0 ,"xhci_hcd" ,xhci_to_hcd (xhci));if (ret) {xhci_dbg (xhci,"disable MSI interrupt\n" );
@@ -276,7 +276,7 @@ static int xhci_setup_msix(struct xhci_hcd *xhci)for (i =0 ; i < xhci->msix_count; i++) { ret =request_irq (xhci->msix_entries[i].vector, - (irq_handler_t )xhci_msi_irq, + xhci_msi_irq,0 ,"xhci_hcd" ,xhci_to_hcd (xhci));if (ret) goto disable_msix;
drivers/usb/host/xhci.h +1 -1
@@ -1669,7 +1669,7 @@ int xhci_resume(struct xhci_hcd *xhci, bool hibernated);int xhci_get_frame (struct usb_hcd *hcd);irqreturn_t xhci_irq (struct usb_hcd *hcd); -irqreturn_t xhci_msi_irq (int irq,struct usb_hcd *hcd); +irqreturn_t xhci_msi_irq (int irq,void *hcd);int xhci_alloc_dev (struct usb_hcd *hcd,struct usb_device *udev);void xhci_free_dev (struct usb_hcd *hcd,struct usb_device *udev); int xhci_alloc_tt_info(struct xhci_hcd *xhci,
Signature · 1 line
1.6.3.3
Quoted 6 lines · Alex Shi
According to Felipe and Alan's comments the second parameter of irq handler should be 'void *' not a specific structure pointer. So change it.
Signed-off-by Alex Shi <[email protected]>
after a quick look:
Quoted 59 lines
--- drivers/usb/host/xhci-ring.c | 2 +- drivers/usb/host/xhci.c | 4 ++-- drivers/usb/host/xhci.h | 2 +- 3 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)drivers/usb/host/xhci-ring.c +1
-1@@ -2396,7 +2396,7 @@ hw_died:return IRQ_HANDLED ; } -irqreturn_t xhci_msi_irq (int irq,struct usb_hcd *hcd) +irqreturn_t xhci_msi_irq (int irq,void *hcd) {return xhci_irq (hcd); }drivers/usb/host/xhci.c +2
-2@@ -204,7 +204,7 @@ static int xhci_setup_msi(struct xhci_hcd *xhci)return ret; } - ret =request_irq (pdev->irq, (irq_handler_t )xhci_msi_irq, + ret =request_irq (pdev->irq, xhci_msi_irq,0 ,"xhci_hcd" ,xhci_to_hcd (xhci));if (ret) {xhci_dbg (xhci,"disable MSI interrupt\n" );@@ -276,7 +276,7 @@ static int xhci_setup_msix(struct xhci_hcd *xhci)for (i =0 ; i < xhci->msix_count; i++) { ret =request_irq (xhci->msix_entries[i].vector, - (irq_handler_t )xhci_msi_irq, + xhci_msi_irq,0 ,"xhci_hcd" ,xhci_to_hcd (xhci));if (ret) goto disable_msix;drivers/usb/host/xhci.h +1
-1@@ -1669,7 +1669,7 @@ int xhci_resume(struct xhci_hcd *xhci, bool hibernated);int xhci_get_frame (struct usb_hcd *hcd);irqreturn_t xhci_irq (struct usb_hcd *hcd); -irqreturn_t xhci_msi_irq (int irq,struct usb_hcd *hcd); +irqreturn_t xhci_msi_irq (int irq,void *hcd);int xhci_alloc_dev (struct usb_hcd *hcd,struct usb_device *udev);void xhci_free_dev (struct usb_hcd *hcd,struct usb_device *udev); int xhci_alloc_tt_info(struct xhci_hcd *xhci,Signature · 1 line
1.6.3.3
Signature · 1 line
balbi
gregkh
maintainerQuoted 11 lines · Alex Shi
According to Felipe and Alan's comments the second parameter of irq handler should be 'void *' not a specific structure pointer. So change it.
Signed-off-by Alex Shi <[email protected]>--- drivers/usb/host/xhci-ring.c | 2 +- drivers/usb/host/xhci.c | 4 ++-- drivers/usb/host/xhci.h | 2 +- 3 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
Is this needed in my -next tree now? Or is it something for later?
Any reason you did not put Sarah on the To: line here? She's the one that needs to ack it before I can accept it.
thanks,
greg k-h
Quoted 6 lines · gregkh
Quoted 5 lines · Alex Shi
According to Felipe and Alan's comments the second parameter of irq handler should be 'void *' not a specific structure pointer. So change it.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Signed-off-by Alex Shi <[email protected]>--- drivers/usb/host/xhci-ring.c | 2 +- drivers/usb/host/xhci.c | 4 ++-- drivers/usb/host/xhci.h | 2 +- 3 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)Is this needed in my -next tree now? Or is it something for later?
Appreciate if it can be in -next tree. :)
Quoted 3 lines
Any reason you did not put Sarah on the To: line here? She's the one that needs to ack it before I can accept it.
Sarah, would you like to give some comments here?
Thanks!
Quoted 4 lines
thanks,
greg k-h
Quoted 18 lines · Alex Shi
Quoted 6 lines · gregkh
Quoted 5 lines · Alex Shi
According to Felipe and Alan's comments the second parameter of irq handler should be 'void *' not a specific structure pointer. So change it.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Signed-off-by Alex Shi <[email protected]>--- drivers/usb/host/xhci-ring.c | 2 +- drivers/usb/host/xhci.c | 4 ++-- drivers/usb/host/xhci.h | 2 +- 3 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)Is this needed in my -next tree now? Or is it something for later?
Quoted 8 lines
Appreciate if it can be in -next tree. :)
Quoted 3 lines
Any reason you did not put Sarah on the To: line here? She's the one that needs to ack it before I can accept it.
Sarah, would you like to give some comments here?
Looks fine. I'll send a pull request to Greg with this patch after I verify it doesn't generate new warnings.
Sarah Sharp
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Sarah, would you like to give some comments here?
Looks fine. I'll send a pull request to Greg with this patch after I verify it doesn't generate new warnings.
Sarah Sharp
Thanks!
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Is this needed in my -next tree now? Or is it something for later?
Appreciate if it can be in -next tree. :)
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 9 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Any reason you did not put Sarah on the To: line here? She's the one that needs to ack it before I can accept it.
Sarah, would you like to give some comments here?
Looks fine. I'll send a pull request to Greg with this patch after I verify it doesn't generate new warnings.
Sarah, any further comments for this patch? :)
Alex Shi
Acked-by Felipe BalbiQuoted 11 lines · Alex Shi
Quoted 11 lines
Quoted 11 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Is this needed in my -next tree now? Or is it something for later?
Appreciate if it can be in -next tree. :)
Quoted 3 lines
Any reason you did not put Sarah on the To: line here? She's the one that needs to ack it before I can accept it.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 1 line
Sarah, would you like to give some comments here?
Looks fine. I'll send a pull request to Greg with this patch after I verify it doesn't generate new warnings.
Sarah, any further comments for this patch? :)
Just try on 3.5-rc2 kernel, find it still works. Sarah, do you mind to give some comments for this?
-------------
Quoted 1 line
From
6ae1b9e71f9b14be5774ae9c1b4cf57cd4e747acMon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Alex Shi <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 15:10:18 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] usb/xhci: unify parameter of xhci_msi_irq
According to Felipe and Alan's comments the second parameter of irq handler should be 'void *' not a specific structure pointer. So fix it.
--- drivers/usb/host/xhci-ring.c | 2 +- drivers/usb/host/xhci.c | 4 ++-- drivers/usb/host/xhci.h | 2 +- 3 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
drivers/usb/host/xhci-ring.c +1 -1
@@ -2479,7 +2479,7 @@ hw_died:return IRQ_HANDLED ; } -irqreturn_t xhci_msi_irq (int irq,struct usb_hcd *hcd) +irqreturn_t xhci_msi_irq (int irq,void *hcd) {return xhci_irq (hcd); }
drivers/usb/host/xhci.c +2 -2
@@ -215,7 +215,7 @@ static int xhci_setup_msi(struct xhci_hcd *xhci)return ret; } - ret =request_irq (pdev->irq, (irq_handler_t )xhci_msi_irq, + ret =request_irq (pdev->irq, xhci_msi_irq,0 ,"xhci_hcd" ,xhci_to_hcd (xhci));if (ret) {xhci_dbg (xhci,"disable MSI interrupt\n" );
@@ -287,7 +287,7 @@ static int xhci_setup_msix(struct xhci_hcd *xhci)for (i =0 ; i < xhci->msix_count; i++) { ret =request_irq (xhci->msix_entries[i].vector, - (irq_handler_t )xhci_msi_irq, + xhci_msi_irq,0 ,"xhci_hcd" ,xhci_to_hcd (xhci));if (ret) goto disable_msix;
drivers/usb/host/xhci.h +1 -1
@@ -1710,7 +1710,7 @@ int xhci_resume(struct xhci_hcd *xhci, bool hibernated);int xhci_get_frame (struct usb_hcd *hcd);irqreturn_t xhci_irq (struct usb_hcd *hcd); -irqreturn_t xhci_msi_irq (int irq,struct usb_hcd *hcd); +irqreturn_t xhci_msi_irq (int irq,void *hcd);int xhci_alloc_dev (struct usb_hcd *hcd,struct usb_device *udev);void xhci_free_dev (struct usb_hcd *hcd,struct usb_device *udev); int xhci_alloc_tt_info(struct xhci_hcd *xhci,
Signature · 1 line
1.7.5.4
Hi Alex,
This got lost in the 3.5 push, but I think it's a good candidate for 3.6. I think Greg is accepting 3.6 patches now, and I'll send this off to him.
Sarah Sharp
Quoted 100 lines · Alex Shi
Quoted 11 lines · Alex Shi
Quoted 11 lines
Quoted 11 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Is this needed in my -next tree now? Or is it something for later?
Appreciate if it can be in -next tree. :)
Quoted 3 lines
Any reason you did not put Sarah on the To: line here? She's the one that needs to ack it before I can accept it.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 1 line
Sarah, would you like to give some comments here?
Looks fine. I'll send a pull request to Greg with this patch after I verify it doesn't generate new warnings.
Sarah, any further comments for this patch? :)
Just try on 3.5-rc2 kernel, find it still works. Sarah, do you mind to give some comments for this?
-------------
From
6ae1b9e71f9b14be5774ae9c1b4cf57cd4e747acMon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Alex Shi <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 15:10:18 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] usb/xhci: unify parameter ofxhci_msi_irqAccording to Felipe and Alan's comments the second parameter of irq handler should be 'void *' not a specific structure pointer. So fix it.
Signed-off-by Alex Shi <[email protected]>Acked-by Felipe Balbi <[email protected]>--- drivers/usb/host/xhci-ring.c | 2 +- drivers/usb/host/xhci.c | 4 ++-- drivers/usb/host/xhci.h | 2 +- 3 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)drivers/usb/host/xhci-ring.c +1
-1@@ -2479,7 +2479,7 @@ hw_died:return IRQ_HANDLED ; } -irqreturn_t xhci_msi_irq (int irq,struct usb_hcd *hcd) +irqreturn_t xhci_msi_irq (int irq,void *hcd) {return xhci_irq (hcd); }drivers/usb/host/xhci.c +2
-2@@ -215,7 +215,7 @@ static int xhci_setup_msi(struct xhci_hcd *xhci)return ret; } - ret =request_irq (pdev->irq, (irq_handler_t )xhci_msi_irq, + ret =request_irq (pdev->irq, xhci_msi_irq,0 ,"xhci_hcd" ,xhci_to_hcd (xhci));if (ret) {xhci_dbg (xhci,"disable MSI interrupt\n" );@@ -287,7 +287,7 @@ static int xhci_setup_msix(struct xhci_hcd *xhci)for (i =0 ; i < xhci->msix_count; i++) { ret =request_irq (xhci->msix_entries[i].vector, - (irq_handler_t )xhci_msi_irq, + xhci_msi_irq,0 ,"xhci_hcd" ,xhci_to_hcd (xhci));if (ret) goto disable_msix;drivers/usb/host/xhci.h +1
-1@@ -1710,7 +1710,7 @@ int xhci_resume(struct xhci_hcd *xhci, bool hibernated);int xhci_get_frame (struct usb_hcd *hcd);irqreturn_t xhci_irq (struct usb_hcd *hcd); -irqreturn_t xhci_msi_irq (int irq,struct usb_hcd *hcd); +irqreturn_t xhci_msi_irq (int irq,void *hcd);int xhci_alloc_dev (struct usb_hcd *hcd,struct usb_device *udev);void xhci_free_dev (struct usb_hcd *hcd,struct usb_device *udev); int xhci_alloc_tt_info(struct xhci_hcd *xhci,Signature · 1 line
1.7.5.4
gregkh
maintainerQuoted 5 lines · Sarah Sharp
Hi Alex,
This got lost in the 3.5 push, but I think it's a good candidate for 3.6. I think Greg is accepting 3.6 patches now, and I'll send this off to him.
Yes, I am taking 3.6 stuff now. In the future, once -rc1 is out, I can take patches for the next release at that point in time.
greg k-h
Quoted 9 lines · gregkh
Quoted 5 lines · Sarah Sharp
Hi Alex,
This got lost in the 3.5 push, but I think it's a good candidate for 3.6. I think Greg is accepting 3.6 patches now, and I'll send this off to him.
Yes, I am taking 3.6 stuff now. In the future, once -rc1 is out, I can take patches for the next release at that point in time.
I see. Thanks all.
Quoted 2 lines
greg k-h
Quoted 12 lines · gregkh
Quoted 5 lines · Sarah Sharp
Hi Alex,
This got lost in the 3.5 push, but I think it's a good candidate for 3.6. I think Greg is accepting 3.6 patches now, and I'll send this off to him.
Yes, I am taking 3.6 stuff now. In the future, once -rc1 is out, I can take patches for the next release at that point in time.
greg k-h
Didn't find the patch in upstream 3.6-rc, but it is still workable for upstream kernel.
So, was you just going to apply it on 3.7 kernel? or just forget it?
Thanks
Alex
Quoted 12 lines · Alex Shi
Quoted 10 lines · gregkh
Quoted 5 lines · Sarah Sharp
Hi Alex,
This got lost in the 3.5 push, but I think it's a good candidate for 3.6. I think Greg is accepting 3.6 patches now, and I'll send this off to him.
Yes, I am taking 3.6 stuff now. In the future, once -rc1 is out, I can take patches for the next release at that point in time.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 2 lines
greg k-h
Didn't find the patch in upstream 3.6-rc, but it is still workable for upstream kernel.
So, was you just going to apply it on 3.7 kernel? or just forget it?
Hi Alex,
I am human, and trying my human best to keep up as a maintainer. Bug fixes and big features take priority over the small improvements, and I'm sorry that your patch (and other patches) have fallen by the wayside. It is not personal, I simply cannot be perfect.
I will be returning to full maintainership duties after the various Linux conferences next week, and I will do my best to get your patch merged.
Sarah Sharp
Quoted 23 lines · Sarah Sharp
Quoted 12 lines · Alex Shi
Quoted 10 lines · gregkh
Quoted 5 lines · Sarah Sharp
Hi Alex,
This got lost in the 3.5 push, but I think it's a good candidate for 3.6. I think Greg is accepting 3.6 patches now, and I'll send this off to him.
Yes, I am taking 3.6 stuff now. In the future, once -rc1 is out, I can take patches for the next release at that point in time.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 2 lines
greg k-h
Didn't find the patch in upstream 3.6-rc, but it is still workable for upstream kernel.
So, was you just going to apply it on 3.7 kernel? or just forget it?Hi Alex,
Quoted 8 lines
I am human, and trying my human best to keep up as a maintainer. Bug fixes and big features take priority over the small improvements, and I'm sorry that your patch (and other patches) have fallen by the wayside. It is not personal, I simply cannot be perfect.
I will be returning to full maintainership duties after the various Linux conferences next week, and I will do my best to get your patch merged.
Thanks for your response, and pick up this small patch.
I am sorry, if you thought I want press you on a such small issue. Actually, I just went to have a kindly reminder.
Thanks again for your consideration and maintain job!
Quoted 2 lines
Sarah Sharp
Signature · 2 lines
Thanks
Alex