[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9923a92c-f76d-ad87-a648-da212b6b39de@mentor.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 19:37:12 +0530
From: Harish Jenny K N <harish_kandiga@...tor.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Avri Altman <Avri.Altman@....com>,
"ulf.hansson@...aro.org" <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
"linus.walleij@...aro.org" <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
"adrian.hunter@...el.com" <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
"shawn.lin@...k-chips.com" <shawn.lin@...k-chips.com>
CC: "linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Vladimir_Zapolskiy@...tor.com" <Vladimir_Zapolskiy@...tor.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9] mmc: Export host capabilities to debugfs.
On Monday 12 March 2018 07:04 PM, Harish Jenny K N wrote:
>
> On Monday 12 March 2018 06:33 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Mon, 2018-03-12 at 18:00 +0530, Harish Jenny K N wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>>>> + for_each_set_bit(bit, (const unsigned long *)&caps,
>>>>>>>> BITS_PER_LONG)
>>>>>>>> + for_each_set_bit(bit, (const unsigned long
>>>>>>>> *)&caps2,
>>>>>>>> BITS_PER_LONG)
>>>>>>> Explicit casting is not needed anymore in both cases.
>>>>>> Also maybe use sizeof(mmc_host_capabilities) instead of
>>>>>> BITS_PER_LONG?
>>>>> You mean sizeof(caps) and not sizeof(mmc_host_capabilities) .
>>>>> Right ?
>>>> meant ARRAY_SIZE(mmc_host_capabilities)
>>> ARRAY_SIZE(mmc_host_capabilities) will be 32 and this will be my old
>>> change for which I got a comment from Andy Shevchenko asking me to
>>> replace u32 with unsigned long.
>>>
>>> This is the old comment:
>>>
>>>>> + int size = sizeof(u32) * BITS_PER_BYTE;
>>>> This is redundant. Use BITS_PER_LONG (why's that, see below) in the
>> There is nothing about ARRAY_SIZE().
>> ARRAY_SIZE() will work quite good as well.
> Yes. Definitely it works. I was only mentioning about changing u32 to unsigned long for caps and passing BITS_PER_LONGĀ as size in for_each_set_bit.
>
Just to make it clear, I will use ARRAY_SIZE(mmc_host_capabilities) as argument in the next version of the patch.
Can anyone please respond to my previous request?
> Before sending new patch , I would like to inform that I have been sending this patch with the following checkpatch warning, just to keep it same as other usages of debugfs_create_file in the drivers/mmc/core/debugfs.c file.
> WARNING:SYMBOLIC_PERMS: Symbolic permissions 'S_IRUSR' are not preferred. Consider using octal permissions '0400'.
> Do I need to address this or keep it same as S_IRUSR ?
Thanks,
Harish Jenny K N
Powered by blists - more mailing lists