On Tue, Feb 07, 2023 at 08:25:57AM +0100, Guru Mehar Rachaputi wrote: > On Mon, Feb 06, 2023 at 10:43:56AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 06, 2023 at 12:39:08AM +0100, Guru Mehar Rachaputi wrote: > > > 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. > > > > Look at other submissions on the mailing lists. When you submit a new > > version of a patch, it is stand-alone, with no dependancies on anything > > else, otherwise tracking that would be impossible, right? > > > > I suggest reading through the kernelnewbies.org "first patch submission" > > tutorial first as I think it will answer questions like this. > > > > good luck! > > > > greg k-h > > Thanks for taking time. > > If my understanding is correct, every version of the patch should > include all the patches/patchfiles and it should explain what happened in each > version(in decrement order) through a coverletter. Please correct me otherwise. I recommend reading the in-kernel documentation about all of this which can be found at Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst in the kernel source tree. That should explain all of this and is recommended reading first if you have questions about how to create and submit a patch. If after reading that, you have specific questions, please let us know. thanks, greg k-h