On 07/18/2013 06:13 PM, Frank Schäfer wrote:
Am 17.07.2013 00:57, schrieb Alban Browaeys:
Set the config structure pointer to the eeprom data pointer (data,
here eedata dereferenced) not the pointer to the pointer to
the eeprom data (eedata itself).
Signed-off-by: Alban Browaeys <pra...@yahoo.com>
---
drivers/media/usb/em28xx/em28xx-i2c.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/media/usb/em28xx/em28xx-i2c.c
b/drivers/media/usb/em28xx/em28xx-i2c.c
index 4851cc2..c4ff973 100644
--- a/drivers/media/usb/em28xx/em28xx-i2c.c
+++ b/drivers/media/usb/em28xx/em28xx-i2c.c
@@ -726,7 +726,7 @@ static int em28xx_i2c_eeprom(struct em28xx *dev, unsigned
bus,
*eedata = data;
*eedata_len = len;
- dev_config = (void *)eedata;
+ dev_config = (void *)*eedata;
switch (le16_to_cpu(dev_config->chip_conf) >> 4 & 0x3) {
case 0:
Signed-off-by: Frank Schäfer <fschaefer....@googlemail.com>
Does that SOB mean you will pick that patch via you tree, or was it only
a mistake?
I have thought few times what should I reply to patches which are for
modules I am maintaining and I will pick up and pull-request via own
tree. Usually I just reply "patch applied" but maybe Signed-off-by is
used for same.
regards
Antti
--
http://palosaari.fi/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
