On 04/20/2016 02:38 AM, David Rivshin (Allworx) wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 18:43:39 -0400 (EDT)
> David Miller wrote:
>
>> From: Grygorii Strashko
>> Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 21:44:09 +0300
>>
>>> May be you can send revert + your patch 1 (only fix for this issue).
>>>
>>> Dave, Does that sound
On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 18:43:39 -0400 (EDT)
David Miller wrote:
> From: Grygorii Strashko
> Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 21:44:09 +0300
>
> > May be you can send revert + your patch 1 (only fix for this issue).
> >
> > Dave, Does that sound good to you?
>
> Sure.
OK, I will hopefully have that read
From: Grygorii Strashko
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 21:44:09 +0300
> May be you can send revert + your patch 1 (only fix for this issue).
>
> Dave, Does that sound good to you?
Sure.
On 04/19/2016 08:14 PM, David Rivshin (Allworx) wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 18:44:41 +0300
Grygorii Strashko wrote:
On 04/19/2016 06:01 PM, David Rivshin (Allworx) wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 17:41:07 +0300
Grygorii Strashko wrote:
Hi,
On 04/19/2016 04:56 PM, Andrew Goodbody wrote:
Adding
On 19/04/16 10:14, David Rivshin (Allworx) wrote:
>> Ah Ok. There are no user of cpsw_platform_data outside of net/ethernet/ti/,
>> so yes, looks like your patch 1 does exactly what's needed.
>
> Given that the v1 of Andrew's patch is already in Dave's net tree, and
> would obviously have many co
On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 18:44:41 +0300
Grygorii Strashko wrote:
> On 04/19/2016 06:01 PM, David Rivshin (Allworx) wrote:
> > On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 17:41:07 +0300
> > Grygorii Strashko wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On 04/19/2016 04:56 PM, Andrew Goodbody wrote:
> >>> Adding a 2nd PHY to cpsw resul
From: Grygorii Strashko
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 17:41:07 +0300
> David, Is it possible to drop prev version of this patch from linux-next
> - it breaks boot on many TI boards with -next.
It doesn't work that way, I cannot "drop" patches.
One has to send me a fix to the existing patch, or a rever
On 04/19/2016 06:01 PM, David Rivshin (Allworx) wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 17:41:07 +0300
> Grygorii Strashko wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 04/19/2016 04:56 PM, Andrew Goodbody wrote:
>>> Adding a 2nd PHY to cpsw results in a NULL pointer dereference
>>> as below. Fix by maintaining a reference to e
On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 17:41:07 +0300
Grygorii Strashko wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 04/19/2016 04:56 PM, Andrew Goodbody wrote:
> > Adding a 2nd PHY to cpsw results in a NULL pointer dereference
> > as below. Fix by maintaining a reference to each PHY node in slave
> > struct instead of a single reference
Hi,
On 04/19/2016 04:56 PM, Andrew Goodbody wrote:
> Adding a 2nd PHY to cpsw results in a NULL pointer dereference
> as below. Fix by maintaining a reference to each PHY node in slave
> struct instead of a single reference in the priv struct which was
> overwritten by the 2nd PHY.
David, Is it p
Adding a 2nd PHY to cpsw results in a NULL pointer dereference
as below. Fix by maintaining a reference to each PHY node in slave
struct instead of a single reference in the priv struct which was
overwritten by the 2nd PHY.
[ 17.870933] Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual
Adding a 2nd PHY to cpsw results in a NULL pointer dereference
as below. Fix by maintaining a reference to each PHY node in slave
struct instead of a single reference in the priv struct which was
overwritten by the 2nd PHY.
[ 17.870933] Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual
12 matches
Mail list logo
