Hi Marek,
On 8 June 2017 at 06:33, Marek Vasut marex@denx.de wrote:
On 06/08/2017 05:34 AM, sjg@google.com wrote:
On 06/07/2017 03:37 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Marek,
On 7 June 2017 at 07:33, Marek Vasut marex@denx.de wrote:
On 06/07/2017 03:28 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Marek,
On 7 June 2017 at 06:55, Marek Vasut marex@denx.de wrote:
On 06/07/2017 02:53 PM, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Marek, > > On 7 June 2017 at 06:41, Marek Vasut marex@denx.de wrote: >> On 06/07/2017 02:38 PM, Simon Glass wrote: >>> +Tom for comment >>> >>> Hi Marek, >>> >>> On 7 June 2017 at 00:27, Marek Vasut marex@denx.de wrote: >>>> On 06/07/2017 02:16 AM, Simon Glass wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> On 6 June 2017 at 17:59, Dr. Philipp Tomsich >>>>> philipp.tomsich@theobroma-systems.com wrote: >>>>>> Simon, >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 06 Jun 2017, at 23:09, Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Philipp, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 6 June 2017 at 07:42, Philipp Tomsich >>>>>>> philipp.tomsich@theobroma-systems.com wrote: >>>>>>>> The regs_otg field in uintptr_t of the platform data structure for >>>>>>>> dwc2-otg has thus far been an unsigned int, but will eventually be >>>>>>>> casted into a void*. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This raises the following error with GCC 6.3 and buildman: >>>>>>>> ../drivers/usb/gadget/dwc2_udc_otg.c: In function 'dwc2_udc_probe': >>>>>>>> ../drivers/usb/gadget/dwc2_udc_otg.c:821:8: warning: cast to pointer from integer of different size [-Wint-to-pointer-cast] >>>>>>>> reg = (struct dwc2_usbotg_reg *)pdata->regs_otg; >>>>>>>> ^ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This changes regs_otg to a uintptr_t to ensure that it is large enough >>>>>>>> to hold any valid pointer (and fix the associated warning). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Philipp Tomsich philipp.tomsich@theobroma-systems.com >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Changes in v2: >>>>>>>> - (new patch) fix a int-to-pointer cast warning for regs_otg in >>>>>>>> dwc2-otg to fix a buildman failure for u-boot-rockchip/master@2b19b2f >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> include/usb/dwc2_udc.h | 2 +- >>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>>>>>>
Applied to u-boot-rockchip, thanks!
This is clearly a USB patch ... why would it go through u-boot-rockchip? But OK, yes, I see we have no structure in place and patches go through whatever random tree these days.
It is assigned to me in patchwork and is needed to fix a build warning. It is tricky to deal with individual patches within a larger series since there are often dependencies. I had the same issue with video patches.
Don't we normally try to keep series together?
Regards, Simon