On Sun, Feb 05, 2023 at 08:12:31PM +0100, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> Le 05/02/2023 à 19:11, Guru Mehar Rachaputi a écrit :
> > This patch is to fix checkpatch warning: "Macro argument 'iobase' may be better
> > as '(iobase)' to avoid precedence issues" changed to inline function. In
> > relation to this, names of the callers of macro are also modified to call
> > this function.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Guru Mehar Rachaputi <gurumeharrachaputi@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Hi,
>
> this patch should be v4.
> You re-sent it with a modified commit message (the position of your S-o-b)
>
> The idea behind patch versions is to help maintainer. With the way you did,
> now 2 patches stating v3 are available.
> Which one is the correct one?
> The maintainer would need to look at both, search for differences, maybe
> look at the date of the mails.
> A v4 would be much easier for him.
>
>
> Also, when you send an updated version of a patch, it should always be
> "complete". I mean that the patch below seems to need v2, and maybe even v1
> (which is apparently not on the linux-kernel mailing list).
>
> A maintainer can't know by himself what is needed and what is not.
>
> So you should resend a new patch.
> It should be a v4, and it should include what is needed from (v1?), v2 and
> v3 all together.
>
> CJ
>
>
> > ---
> > Changes in v3:
> > - Whitespace error from checkpatch fixed
> >
> > Changes in v2:
> > - Macros with one statement that is to call 'iowrite8' function changed
> > to inline function as reviewed by gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
> > In relation to this, names of the callers of macro are also modified
> > to call this function.
> > ---
> > drivers/staging/vt6655/card.c | 3 +--
> > drivers/staging/vt6655/channel.c | 2 +-
> > drivers/staging/vt6655/mac.h | 4 ++--
> > 3 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/vt6655/card.c b/drivers/staging/vt6655/card.c
> > index a6ff496b01b6..d2d122dc16d8 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/vt6655/card.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/vt6655/card.c
> > @@ -643,8 +643,7 @@ void CARDvSetRSPINF(struct vnt_private *priv, u8 bb_type)
> > &byRsvTime);
> > iowrite16(MAKEWORD(byTxRate, byRsvTime), priv->port_offset + MAC_REG_RSPINF_A_72);
> > /* Set to Page0 */
> > - vt6655_mac_select_page0(priv->port_offset);
> > -
> > + vt6655_mac_select_page0(priv->port_offset);
> > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&priv->lock, flags);
> > }
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/vt6655/channel.c b/drivers/staging/vt6655/channel.c
> > index e9a44bcebe32..60b445c38424 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/vt6655/channel.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/vt6655/channel.c
> > @@ -121,7 +121,7 @@ bool set_channel(struct vnt_private *priv, struct ieee80211_channel *ch)
> > iowrite8(priv->byCurPwr, priv->port_offset + MAC_REG_PWRCCK);
> > RFbSetPower(priv, RATE_6M, priv->byCurrentCh);
> > iowrite8(priv->byCurPwr, priv->port_offset + MAC_REG_PWROFDM);
> > - vt6655_mac_select_page0(priv->port_offset);
> > + vt6655_mac_select_page0(priv->port_offset);
> > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&priv->lock, flags);
> > }
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/vt6655/mac.h b/drivers/staging/vt6655/mac.h
> > index b9a7ca0fe604..ae3064303691 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/vt6655/mac.h
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/vt6655/mac.h
> > @@ -539,12 +539,12 @@
> > static inline void vt6655_mac_select_page0(void __iomem *iobase)
> > {
> > - iowrite8(0, iobase + MAC_REG_PAGE1SEL);
> > + iowrite8(0, iobase + MAC_REG_PAGE1SEL);
> > }
> > static inline void vt6655_mac_select_page1(void __iomem *iobase)
> > {
> > - iowrite8(1, iobase + MAC_REG_PAGE1SEL);
> > + iowrite8(1, iobase + MAC_REG_PAGE1SEL);
> > }
> > #define MAKEWORD(lb, hb) \
>
Thanks for the explaination.
Since I amended commit message and thought as there is no new commit it
should still be the same patch.
Is it ok if I send a new patchset based on the previous conversations?
I have four commits now, 4th commit being just the commit message and
this patchset doesn't have s-o-b issue.
or
should I undo all the amends?
--
Thanks & Regards,
Guru
