On 3/31/22 22:02, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 11:52 AM Dmitry Osipenko
> <dmitry.osipenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>> +/*
>>> + * Get the requested iova but don't pin it. Fails if the requested iova is
>>> + * not available. Doesn't need a put because iovas are currently valid for
>>> + * the life of the object.
>>> + *
>>> + * Setting an iova of zero will clear the vma.
>>> + */
>>> +int msm_gem_set_iova(struct drm_gem_object *obj,
>>> + struct msm_gem_address_space *aspace, uint64_t iova)
>>> +{
>>> + int ret = 0;
>>
>> nit: No need to initialize the ret
>
> actually, we do
Indeed, sorry :)
...
>>> int msm_gem_get_and_pin_iova_range(struct drm_gem_object *obj,
>>> struct msm_gem_address_space *aspace, uint64_t *iova,
>>> u64 range_start, u64 range_end);
>> nit: There is an odd mix of uint64_t and u64 (and alike) in the MSM code
>> :) The uint64_t variant shouldn't be used by kernel code in general and
>> checkpatch should want about it.
>
> one of many things that I disagree with checkpatch about ;-)
>
> I prefer standard types to custom ones. I _kinda_ get the argument in
> case of uapi (but IMHO that doesn't apply to how drm uapi headers are
> used)
I'd understand if it was all either uint64_t or u64, but the mix.. hm.
