Hi Mathieu,
On Mon, Jun 08, 2020 at 10:17:57AM -0600, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 08:46:59AM +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> > Hi Mathieu,
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 02:01:56PM -0600, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 09:37:22AM +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> > > > The ADSP device uses the RPMsg API to connect vhost and VirtIO SOF
> > > > Audio DSP drivers on KVM host and guest.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Guennadi Liakhovetski <guennadi.liakhovetski@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/rpmsg/virtio_rpmsg_bus.c | 1 +
> > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/rpmsg/virtio_rpmsg_bus.c b/drivers/rpmsg/virtio_rpmsg_bus.c
> > > > index f3bd050..ebe3f19 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/rpmsg/virtio_rpmsg_bus.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/rpmsg/virtio_rpmsg_bus.c
> > > > @@ -949,6 +949,7 @@ static void rpmsg_remove(struct virtio_device *vdev)
> > > >
> > > > static struct virtio_device_id id_table[] = {
> > > > { VIRTIO_ID_RPMSG, VIRTIO_DEV_ANY_ID },
> > > > + { VIRTIO_ID_ADSP, VIRTIO_DEV_ANY_ID },
> > >
> > > I am fine with this patch but won't add an RB because of the (many) checkpatch
> > > errors. Based on the comment I made on the previous set seeing those was
> > > unexpected.
> >
> > Are you using "--strict?" Sorry, I don't see any checkpatch errors, only warnings.
>
> No, plane checkpatch on the rproc-next branch.
>
> > Most of them are "over 80 characters" which as we now know is no more an issue,
>
> There is a thread discussing the matter but I have not seen a clear resolution
> yet.
I think the resolution is pretty clear as defined by Linus, but maybe it has changed
again since I last checked.
> > I just haven't updated my tree yet. Most others are really minor IMHO. Maybe one
>
> Minor or not, if checkpatch complains then it is important enough to address. I
> am willing to overlook the lines over 80 characters but everything else needs to
> be dealt with.
Sure, checkpatch should be run before each patch submission and whatever it reports
should be considered. As Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst clearly
states:
"Check your patches with the patch style checker prior to submission
(scripts/checkpatch.pl). Note, though, that the style checker should be
viewed as a guide, not as a replacement for human judgment. If your code
looks better with a violation then its probably best left alone."
So, yes, I checked all what checkepatch reported and used my judgement to decide
which recommendations to take and which to ignore.
Thanks
Guennadi
> Thanks,
> Mathieu
>
> > of them I actually would want to fix - using "help" instead of "---help---" in
> > Kconfig. What errors are you seeing in your checks?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Guennadi
> >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Mathieu
> > >
> > > > { 0 },
> > > > };
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > 1.9.3
> > > >
