On Thu, Sep 02, 2021 at 07:46:59AM +0200, Krish Jain wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 7:46 AM Krish Jain <krishjain02939@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Hi. How do I fix this issue, Greg? Thanks.
> >
> >
> > Best Regards
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 7:30 AM Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 02, 2021 at 01:52:15PM +0200, Krish Jain wrote:
> > > > This patch replaces (1 << HSDMA_GLO_BT_SHIFT) with the BIT(x) macro, as suggested by checkpatch.pl, for the file drivers/staging/mt7621-dma/hsdma-mt7621.c .
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Krish Jain <krishjain02939@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/staging/mt7621-dma/hsdma-mt7621.c | 5 ++---
> > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/mt7621-dma/hsdma-mt7621.c b/drivers/staging/mt7621-dma/hsdma-mt7621.c
> > > > index 89b72a802800..a99cec876110 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/staging/mt7621-dma/hsdma-mt7621.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/staging/mt7621-dma/hsdma-mt7621.c
> > > > @@ -72,7 +72,7 @@
> > > > #define HSDMA_GLO_TX_DMA BIT(0)
> > > >
> > > > #define HSDMA_BT_SIZE_16BYTES (0 << HSDMA_GLO_BT_SHIFT)
> > > > -#define HSDMA_BT_SIZE_32BYTES (1 << HSDMA_GLO_BT_SHIFT)
> > > > +#define HSDMA_BT_SIZE_32BYTES BIT(HSDMA_GLO_BT_SHIFT)
> > > > #define HSDMA_BT_SIZE_64BYTES (2 << HSDMA_GLO_BT_SHIFT)
> > > > #define HSDMA_BT_SIZE_128BYTES (3 << HSDMA_GLO_BT_SHIFT)
> > > >
> > > > @@ -164,8 +164,7 @@ struct mtk_hsdam_engine {
> > > >
> > > > static inline struct mtk_hsdam_engine *mtk_hsdma_chan_get_dev(struct mtk_hsdma_chan *chan)
> > > > {
> > > > - return container_of(chan->vchan.chan.device, struct mtk_hsdam_engine,
> > > > - ddev);
> > > > + return container_of(chan->vchan.chan.device, struct mtk_hsdam_engine, ddev);
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > static inline struct mtk_hsdma_chan *to_mtk_hsdma_chan(struct dma_chan *c)
> > > > --
> > > > 2.25.1
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > This is the friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman. You have sent him
> > > a patch that has triggered this response. He used to manually respond
> > > to these common problems, but in order to save his sanity (he kept
> > > writing the same thing over and over, yet to different people), I was
> > > created. Hopefully you will not take offence and will fix the problem
> > > in your patch and resubmit it so that it can be accepted into the Linux
> > > kernel tree.
> > >
> > > You are receiving this message because of the following common error(s)
> > > as indicated below:
> > >
> > > - Your patch did many different things all at once, making it difficult
> > > to review. All Linux kernel patches need to only do one thing at a
> > > time. If you need to do multiple things (such as clean up all coding
> > > style issues in a file/driver), do it in a sequence of patches, each
> > > one doing only one thing. This will make it easier to review the
> > > patches to ensure that they are correct, and to help alleviate any
> > > merge issues that larger patches can cause.
> > >
> > > - You did not write a descriptive Subject: for the patch, allowing Greg,
> > > and everyone else, to know what this patch is all about. Please read
> > > the section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the kernel file,
> > > Documentation/SubmittingPatches for what a proper Subject: line should
> > > look like.
> > >
> > > If you wish to discuss this problem further, or you have questions about
> > > how to resolve this issue, please feel free to respond to this email and
> > > Greg will reply once he has dug out from the pending patches received
> > > from other developers.
> > >
> > > thanks,
> > >
> > > greg k-h's patch email bot
>
>
> Oops, muscle memory, sorry for top posting. "How do I fix this issue,
> Greg? Thanks."
Did you read the above text from the bot? What specific suggestions
there did you try and not agree with?
thanks,
greg k-h
