[LEDE-DEV] [PATCH v3] kernel: bump 4.4 to 4.4.106 for 17.01

[Paul Oranje]

Is the declared and initialized variable chipnr used otherwise ? (seen since 4.4.104)
If not, how would that make a difference ?

Regards,
Paul

> Op 19 dec. 2017, om 23:26 heeft Hauke Mehrtens <hauke at hauke-m.de> het volgende geschreven:
> 
> On 12/17/2017 06:56 PM, Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On 17 Dec 2017, at 17:22, Etienne Haarsma <bladeoner112 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 	uint8_t *oob = ops->oobbuf;
>>> 	uint8_t *buf = ops->datbuf;
>>> -@@ -2662,7 +2697,7 @@ err_out:
>>> - static int panic_nand_write(struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t to, size_t len,
>>> - 			    size_t *retlen, const uint8_t *buf)
>>> - {
>>> --	struct nand_chip *chip = mtd->priv;
>>> -+	struct nand_chip *chip = mtd_to_nand(mtd);
>>> - 	struct mtd_oob_ops ops;
>>> - 	int ret;
>>> -
>> 
>> I’m unconvinced this is the correct thing to do - in essence just dropping that bit of the patch.  Will panic to nand still work?
>> 
>> Kevin
>> 
> Hi,
> 
> I agree, the correct part should look like this:
> 
> @@ -2512,10 +2512,10 @@ Signed-off-by: John Crispin <blogic at openwrt.org>
>  {
> -	struct nand_chip *chip = mtd->priv;
> +	struct nand_chip *chip = mtd_to_nand(mtd);
> + 	int chipnr = (int)(to >> chip->chip_shift);
>  	struct mtd_oob_ops ops;
>  	int ret;
> -
> -@@ -2722,15 +2757,12 @@ static int nand_do_write_oob(struct mtd_
> 
> @Etienne will you send a new version.
> 
> Hauke
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Lede-dev mailing list
> Lede-dev at lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev