Hi Andy,
Le lundi 18 décembre 2023 à 12:41 +0200, Andy Shevchenko a écrit :
> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 03:43:24PM +0100, Paul Cercueil wrote:
> > Le mercredi 13 décembre 2023 à 15:21 +0200, Andy Shevchenko a
> > écrit :
> > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 10:55:46AM +0100, Paul Cercueil wrote:
> > > > Le lundi 11 décembre 2023 à 20:57 +0200, Andy Shevchenko a
> > > > écrit :
>
> ...
>
> > > > > -#define INGENIC_PIN_GROUP(name, id, func) \
> > > > > - INGENIC_PIN_GROUP_FUNCS(name, id, (void *)(func))
> > > > > +#define INGENIC_PIN_GROUP(_name_, id,
> > > > > func) \
> > > > > + {
> > > > >
> > > > > \
> > > > > + .name =
> > > > > _name_,
> > > > > \
> > > > > + .pins =
> > > > > id##_pins,
> > > > > \
> > > > > + .num_pins =
> > > > > ARRAY_SIZE(id##_pins), \
> > > > > + .data = (void
> > > > > *)func, \
> > > > > + }
> > > >
> > > > This INGENIC_PIN_GROUP() macro doesn't need to be modified,
> > > > does
> > > > it?
> > >
> > > We can go either way. I prefer to go this way as it reduces level
> > > of
> > > indirections in the macros. It makes code easier to read and
> > > understand.
> > > But if you insist, I can drop that change in next version.
> >
> > I like the patches to be minimal. But I understand your point of
> > view
> > as well.
> >
> > If you have to issue a v6, maybe state the reason why you also
> > modify
> > INGENIC_PIN_GROUP() then. But I don't care enough to request a v6
> > just
> > for that.
> >
> > So:
> > Acked-by: Paul Cercueil <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Thank you!
>
> But as I already noted, the series had been applied (by Linus W.)
> and this does not seem to be a critical to fix, do you agree?
>
Well I only suggested to change the commit message - so no, it is not
critical to fix.
Cheers,
-Paul
