On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 12:41 PM Dmitry Osipenko
<dmitry.osipenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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.
yeah, fair, we could be a bit more consistent
BR,
-R
