On 7/12/2024 2:38 AM, Miaoqing Pan wrote:
> On 7/11/2024 12:20 AM, Kalle Valo wrote:
>> Miaoqing Pan <quic_miaoqing@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> I feel that the QMI changes should be in a separat patch and explaining
>> in detail what they are about. Didn't review those now as there's no
>> explanation.
>
> Minor changes for updating 'iaddr' definition. IMO, don't need a
> separate patch.
> struct target_mem_chunk {
> u32 prev_size;
> u32 prev_type;
> dma_addr_t paddr;
> - u32 *vaddr;
> - void __iomem *iaddr;
> + union {
> + u32 *vaddr;
> + void __iomem *iaddr;
> + } v;
> };
Putting something into a union isn't minor.
You should justify the reason for doing it and defend why it is safe to do it.
And note that if you make it an anonymous union then most, if not all, of the
code changes are unnecessary.
/jeff
