| Message ID | 1318482666-20394-1-git-send-email-vapier@gentoo.org |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested |
| Delegated to: | Reinhard Meyer |
| Headers | show |
Dear Mike, Am 13.10.2011 07:11, schrieb Mike Frysinger: > The common.h header says this has to return an int, otherwise we get > build failures due to mismatched prototype and function definition. > > Signed-off-by: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> > --- > arch/avr32/cpu/interrupts.c | 6 ++++-- > 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/avr32/cpu/interrupts.c b/arch/avr32/cpu/interrupts.c > index 6681e13..1127580 100644 > --- a/arch/avr32/cpu/interrupts.c > +++ b/arch/avr32/cpu/interrupts.c > @@ -107,7 +107,7 @@ static int set_interrupt_handler(unsigned int nr, void (*handler)(void), > return 0; > } > > -void timer_init(void) > +int timer_init(void) > { > extern void timer_interrupt_handler(void); > u64 tmp; > @@ -120,8 +120,10 @@ void timer_init(void) > tb_factor = (u32)tmp; > > if (set_interrupt_handler(0, &timer_interrupt_handler, 3)) > - return; > + return 0; NAK, this is an error and should return a negative value (though the return value is currently not evaluated). BTW there is another patch pending -> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/117688/ best regards Andreas Bießmann
Dear Andreas Bießmann, >> if (set_interrupt_handler(0, &timer_interrupt_handler, 3)) >> - return; >> + return 0; > > NAK, this is an error and should return a negative value (though the > return value is currently not evaluated). Agreed > > BTW there is another patch pending -> > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/117688/ I'll apply that one in the year 2015 ;) NO.. its on my list for applying into next Best Regards, Reinhard
On Thursday 13 October 2011 06:27:38 Reinhard Meyer wrote: > Dear Andreas Bießmann, > > BTW there is another patch pending -> > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/117688/ > > I'll apply that one in the year 2015 ;) > > NO.. its on my list for applying into next WFM -mike
Dear Reinhard, Am 13.10.2011 12:27, schrieb Reinhard Meyer: > Dear Andreas Bießmann, >>> if (set_interrupt_handler(0, &timer_interrupt_handler, 3)) >>> - return; >>> + return 0; >> >> NAK, this is an error and should return a negative value (though the >> return value is currently not evaluated). > > Agreed > >> >> BTW there is another patch pending -> >> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/117688/ > > I'll apply that one in the year 2015 ;) > > NO.. its on my list for applying into next it would be great to get this regression fix (or the other one) in now. best regards Andreas Bießmann
diff --git a/arch/avr32/cpu/interrupts.c b/arch/avr32/cpu/interrupts.c index 6681e13..1127580 100644 --- a/arch/avr32/cpu/interrupts.c +++ b/arch/avr32/cpu/interrupts.c @@ -107,7 +107,7 @@ static int set_interrupt_handler(unsigned int nr, void (*handler)(void), return 0; } -void timer_init(void) +int timer_init(void) { extern void timer_interrupt_handler(void); u64 tmp; @@ -120,8 +120,10 @@ void timer_init(void) tb_factor = (u32)tmp; if (set_interrupt_handler(0, &timer_interrupt_handler, 3)) - return; + return 0; /* For all practical purposes, this gives us an overflow interrupt */ sysreg_write(COMPARE, 0xffffffff); + + return 0; }
The common.h header says this has to return an int, otherwise we get build failures due to mismatched prototype and function definition. Signed-off-by: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> --- arch/avr32/cpu/interrupts.c | 6 ++++-- 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)