On 2023/7/5 15:23, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 05/07/2023 09:04, William Qiu wrote: >> >> >> On 2023/7/5 14:21, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> On 04/07/2023 11:04, William Qiu wrote: >>>> Add QSPI clock operation in device probe. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: William Qiu <william.qiu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> Reviewed-by: Hal Feng <hal.feng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx> >>>> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202306022017.UbwjjWRN-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/ >>>> Reported-by: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@xxxxxxxx> >>>> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/r/202306040644.6ZHs55x4-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/ >>> >>> >>>> >>>> @@ -1840,6 +1858,8 @@ static int cqspi_resume(struct device *dev) >>>> struct spi_master *master = dev_get_drvdata(dev); >>>> >>>> clk_prepare_enable(cqspi->clk); >>>> + if (of_device_is_compatible(dev->of_node, "starfive,jh7110-qspi")) >>> >>> Don't add compatible checks inside the code. It does not scale. We >>> expect compatibles to be listed only in one place - of_device_id - and >>> customize driver with match data / quirks / flags. >>> >>> Comment applies to all your diff hunks. >>> >> I'll use "of_device_get_match_data" to replace it. But the way I added >> reset before is also by compatible checks. Should I change this place to >> "of_device_get_match_data" as well? > > I don't know what's there, but in general driver should be written in a > consistent style. >It's in line 1719, inside the "cqspi_probe", but this part of the code is already merged in the main line. Should I keep it in a consistent style? Best regards, William > Best regards, > Krzysztof >
