On 2023/6/7 19:44, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Jun 07, 2023 at 04:14:39PM +0800, Walker Chen wrote: > >> Some minor issues were found during addtional testing and static >> analysis. The patch fixed these minor issues. >> 1.Use BIT() macro to indicate configuration for TDM registers. >> >> 2.Fix the check for devm_reset_control_array_get_exclusive return >> value. The devm_reset_control_array_get_exclusive() function may return >> NULL if it's an optional request. If optional is intended then NULL >> should not be treated as an error case, but as a special kind of success >> case. So here the IS_ERR() is used to check better. > > As covered in submitting-patches.rst please submit one patch per change > rather than combining multiple changes into a single patch, it makes > things much easier to review and handle. Hi Mark, Thanks for your review. OK, I will submit a single patch for each change in the next version. > >> - datarx = (tdm->rx.ifl << IFL_BIT) | >> - (tdm->rx.wl << WL_BIT) | >> - (tdm->rx.sscale << SSCALE_BIT) | >> - (tdm->rx.sl << SL_BIT) | >> - (tdm->rx.lrj << LRJ_BIT); >> + datarx = (tdm->rxwl << 8) | >> + (tdm->rxsscale << 4) | >> + (tdm->rxsl << 2) | >> + TDM_PCMRXCR_LEFT_J; > > I'm not sure this change to use numbers here is a win - the _BIT > definitions look fine (I might've called them _SHIFT but whatever). This is Claudiu's advice. Using the macro BIT() to replace these definition of *_BIT, it will result in big changes in the code. Please refer to previous comments: https://lore.kernel.org/all/143e2fa2-e85d-8036-4f74-ca250c026c1b@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/ @Claudiu What do think about this ? > >> -static const struct of_device_id jh7110_tdm_of_match[] = { >> +static const struct of_device_id jh7110_tdm_match[] = { >> { .compatible = "starfive,jh7110-tdm", }, >> {} >> }; >> >> -MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, jh7110_tdm_of_match); >> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, jh7110_tdm_match); > > This rename wasn't mentioned in the changelog. Will be added in the change log. Best regards, Walker
