On Mon, 2024-08-26 at 18:41 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 5:51 PM Philipp Stanner <pstanner@xxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > On Thu, 2024-08-22 at 17:44 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 03:47:37PM +0200, Philipp Stanner wrote: > > ... > > > > > - err = pcim_iomap_regions(pdev, 1 << PCI_PTP_BAR_NO, > > > > pci_name(pdev)); > > > > - if (err) > > > > + clock->reg_base = pcim_iomap_region(pdev, PCI_PTP_BAR_NO, > > > > pci_name(pdev)); > > > > + if (IS_ERR(clock->reg_base)) { > > > > + err = PTR_ERR(clock->reg_base); > > > > goto error_free; > > > > - > > > > - clock->reg_base = pcim_iomap_table(pdev)[PCI_PTP_BAR_NO]; > > > > + } > > > > > > Perhaps > > > > > > clock->reg_base = pcim_iomap_region(pdev, PCI_PTP_BAR_NO, > > > pci_name(pdev)); > > > err = PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(clock->reg_base); > > > if (err) > > > goto error_free; > > > > > > This will make your patch smaller and neater. > > > > > > P.S. Do you use --histogram diff algo when preparing patches? > > > > So far not. > > Should one do that? > > Id doesn't alter your code, it's in addition to what I suggested, but > as Linus shared that there is no reason to avoid using --histogram > not > only in Linux kernel, but in general as it produces more > human-readable diff:s. If the Boss says so, one can surely do that \o/ Though if it has 0 disadvantages I'd propose proposing to the git-devs to make it the default. P. >