Re: [PATCH] mips: lantiq: fix irq_chip name to not land in new parent field

[Paul Gortmaker]

[Re: [PATCH] mips: lantiq: fix irq_chip name to not land in new parent field] On 03/08/2016 (Wed 07:56) Ralf Baechle wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 02:54:47PM -0400, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> 
> > As of commit be45beb2df69 ("genirq: Add runtime power management
> > support for IRQ chips") the irq_chip struct got a struct *device
> > parent_device field added to it.  However, it was added at the
> > beginning of the struct, which previously was the "name" entry.
> > 
> > The driver here was using a mix of ordered struct init entries and
> > named init entries.  It was supplying the name assuming it was the 1st
> > in the order, and hence when that became a struct *device we get:
> > 
> > arch/mips/lantiq/irq.c:209:2: warning: initialization from incompatible pointer type [enabled by default]
> > arch/mips/lantiq/irq.c:209:2: warning: (near initialization for 'ltq_irq_type.parent_device') [enabled by default]
> > arch/mips/lantiq/irq.c:219:2: warning: initialization from incompatible pointer type [enabled by default]
> > arch/mips/lantiq/irq.c:219:2: warning: (near initialization for 'ltq_eiu_type.parent_device') [enabled by default]
> > 
> > While not runtime tested, I can't imagine trying to dereference a
> > a struct device field from a char string will end well.
> > 
> > Here we've used named element init entries for the name string as well
> > to fix it.
> > 
> > Fixes: be45beb2df69 ("genirq: Add runtime power management support for IRQ chips")
> > Cc: Jon Hunter <jonathanh@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Kevin Hilman <khilman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@xxxxxxx>
> > Cc: John Crispin <john@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Ralf Baechle <ralf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: linux-mips@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Signed-off-by: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Thanks for the patch but I've already applied the identical patch
> https://patchwork.linux-mips.org/patch/13684/.

Patchwork shows that patch was from June, however I still saw the issue
on the linux-next from yesterday (or maybe the weekend?).   Is the
branch you applied it to being fed into sfr's daily merge queue?

P.
--
> 
>   Ralf