On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 07:01:18PM +1100, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: >On 11/06/2015 10:52 AM, Gavin Shan wrote: >>On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 09:56:06AM +1100, Daniel Axtens wrote: >>>Gavin Shan <gwshan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>> >>>>The original implementation of pnv_ioda_setup_pe_seg() configures >>>>IO and M32 segments by separate logics, which can be merged by >>>>by caching @segmap, @seg_size, @win in advance. This shouldn't >>>>cause any behavioural changes. >>>> >>>>Signed-off-by: Gavin Shan <gwshan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>--- >>>> arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/pci-ioda.c | 62 ++++++++++++++----------------- >>>> 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-) >>>> >>>>diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/pci-ioda.c b/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/pci-ioda.c >>>>index 7ee7cfe..553d3f3 100644 >>>>--- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/pci-ioda.c >>>>+++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/pci-ioda.c >>>>@@ -2752,8 +2752,10 @@ static void pnv_ioda_setup_pe_seg(struct pci_controller *hose, >>>> struct pnv_phb *phb = hose->private_data; >>>> struct pci_bus_region region; >>>> struct resource *res; >>>>- int i, index; >>>>- int rc; >>>>+ unsigned int segsize; >>>>+ int *segmap, index, i; >>>>+ uint16_t win; >>>>+ int64_t rc; >>> >>>Good catch! Opal return codes are 64 bit and that should be explicit >>>in the type. However, I seem to remember that we preferred a different >>>type for 64 bit ints in the kernel. I think it's s64, and there are some >>>other uses of that in pci_ioda.c for return codes. >>> >> >>Both int64_t and s64 are fine. I used s64 for the OPAL return value, but >>Alexey likes "int64_t", which is ok to me as well. I won't change it back >>to s64 :-) >> >>>(I'm actually surprised that's not picked up as a compiler >>>warning. Maybe that's something to look at in future.) >>> >> >>Indeed, I didn't see a warning from gcc. >> >>>The rest of the patch looks good on casual inspection - to be sure I'll >>>test the entire series on a machine. (hopefully, time permitting!) >>> >> >>I run scripts/checkpatch.pl on the patchset. Only one warning came from >>[PATCH 44/50], but I won't bother to change that as the warning was >>brought by original code. > >None of these patches failed checkpatch.pl check, what was the error in 44/50? > You're right that none of those patches failed with checkpatch.pl. I had revison 6.1, 6.2, 6.3 before this revision (v7) was posted. There was a warning for 44/50 in 6.3 (perhaps). I run checkpatch.pl on all (v7) patches, no warning reported. Thanks, Gavin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
