On Mon, 2024-08-26 at 18:41 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 5:51 PM Philipp Stanner <pstanner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2024-08-22 at 17:44 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 03:47:37PM +0200, Philipp Stanner wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > > > - err = pcim_iomap_regions(pdev, 1 << PCI_PTP_BAR_NO,
> > > > pci_name(pdev));
> > > > - if (err)
> > > > + clock->reg_base = pcim_iomap_region(pdev, PCI_PTP_BAR_NO,
> > > > pci_name(pdev));
> > > > + if (IS_ERR(clock->reg_base)) {
> > > > + err = PTR_ERR(clock->reg_base);
> > > > goto error_free;
> > > > -
> > > > - clock->reg_base = pcim_iomap_table(pdev)[PCI_PTP_BAR_NO];
> > > > + }
> > >
> > > Perhaps
> > >
> > > clock->reg_base = pcim_iomap_region(pdev, PCI_PTP_BAR_NO,
> > > pci_name(pdev));
> > > err = PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(clock->reg_base);
> > > if (err)
> > > goto error_free;
> > >
> > > This will make your patch smaller and neater.
> > >
> > > P.S. Do you use --histogram diff algo when preparing patches?
> >
> > So far not.
> > Should one do that?
>
> Id doesn't alter your code, it's in addition to what I suggested, but
> as Linus shared that there is no reason to avoid using --histogram
> not
> only in Linux kernel, but in general as it produces more
> human-readable diff:s.
If the Boss says so, one can surely do that \o/
Though if it has 0 disadvantages I'd propose proposing to the git-devs
to make it the default.
P.
>
