[PATCH] staging, gma500: Fix warning in power.c

[PATCH] staging, gma500: Fix warning in power.c

[Rakib Mullick]

 gma_resume_display() wants 'struct pci_dev *' as it's parameter, so lets pass dev->pdev instead of dev. Fixes the following warning.

drivers/staging/gma500/power.c: In function ‘gma_power_begin’:
drivers/staging/gma500/power.c:269:3: warning: passing argument 1 of ‘gma_resume_display’ from incompatible pointer type
drivers/staging/gma500/power.c:99:13: note: expected ‘struct pci_dev *’ but argument is of type ‘struct drm_device *’ 

Signed-off-by: Rakib Mullick <rakib.mullick@gmail.com>
---

diff --git a/drivers/staging/gma500/power.c b/drivers/staging/gma500/power.c
index 436fe97..4082570 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/gma500/power.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/gma500/power.c
@@ -266,7 +266,7 @@ bool gma_power_begin(struct drm_device *dev, bool force_on)
 	ret = gma_resume_pci(dev->pdev);
 	if (ret == 0) {
 		/* FIXME: we want to defer this for Medfield/Oaktrail */
-		gma_resume_display(dev);
+		gma_resume_display(dev->pdev);
 		psb_irq_preinstall(dev);
 		psb_irq_postinstall(dev);
 		pm_runtime_get(&dev->pdev->dev);

Re: [PATCH] staging, gma500: Fix warning in power.c

[Alan Cox]

On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 00:46:45 +0600
Rakib Mullick <rakib.mullick@gmail.com> wrote:

>  gma_resume_display() wants 'struct pci_dev *' as it's parameter, so
> lets pass dev->pdev instead of dev. Fixes the following warning.
> 
> drivers/staging/gma500/power.c: In function ‘gma_power_begin’:
> drivers/staging/gma500/power.c:269:3: warning: passing argument 1 of
> ‘gma_resume_display’ from incompatible pointer type
> drivers/staging/gma500/power.c:99:13: note: expected ‘struct pci_dev
> *’ but argument is of type ‘struct drm_device *’ 

This staging driver is now dead and replaced with
drivers/gpu/drm/gma500/. Thanks for the fix however

Alan

Re: [PATCH] staging, gma500: Fix warning in power.c

[Rakib Mullick]

On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 8:04 PM, Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 00:46:45 +0600
> Rakib Mullick <rakib.mullick@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>  gma_resume_display() wants 'struct pci_dev *' as it's parameter, so
>> lets pass dev->pdev instead of dev. Fixes the following warning.
>>
>> drivers/staging/gma500/power.c: In function ‘gma_power_begin’:
>> drivers/staging/gma500/power.c:269:3: warning: passing argument 1 of
>> ‘gma_resume_display’ from incompatible pointer type
>> drivers/staging/gma500/power.c:99:13: note: expected ‘struct pci_dev
>> *’ but argument is of type ‘struct drm_device *’
>
> This staging driver is now dead and replaced with
> drivers/gpu/drm/gma500/. Thanks for the fix however
>
The patch was prepared against 3.2-rc6 and at the time of preparing
the patch that was the latest rc release.

Thanks,
Rakib

Re: [PATCH] staging, gma500: Fix warning in power.c

[Rakib Mullick]

On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Rakib Mullick <rakib.mullick@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 8:04 PM, Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 00:46:45 +0600
>> Rakib Mullick <rakib.mullick@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>  gma_resume_display() wants 'struct pci_dev *' as it's parameter, so
>>> lets pass dev->pdev instead of dev. Fixes the following warning.
>>>
>>> drivers/staging/gma500/power.c: In function ‘gma_power_begin’:
>>> drivers/staging/gma500/power.c:269:3: warning: passing argument 1 of
>>> ‘gma_resume_display’ from incompatible pointer type
>>> drivers/staging/gma500/power.c:99:13: note: expected ‘struct pci_dev
>>> *’ but argument is of type ‘struct drm_device *’
>>
>> This staging driver is now dead and replaced with
>> drivers/gpu/drm/gma500/. Thanks for the fix however
>>
> The patch was prepared against 3.2-rc6 and at the time of preparing
> the patch that was the latest rc release.
>
Do I have to resend the patch, prepared against -rc7? Patch is on it's
way towards mainline through linux-next (Greg took it in his tree
previously). It might conflict during merging, not sure. If requires I
can send it again.

Thanks,
Rakib

Re: [PATCH] staging, gma500: Fix warning in power.c

[Alan Cox]

> Do I have to resend the patch, prepared against -rc7? Patch is on it's
> way towards mainline through linux-next (Greg took it in his tree
> previously). It might conflict during merging, not sure. If requires I
> can send it again.

What I meant was that the old driver is marked BROKEN for -next (ie
won't be built), and in fact I sent GregKH a request to delete it.

The driver in updated form has moved to drivers/gpu/drm/gma500 in the
-next tree.

Alan