[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <DM6PR12MB4010E0D6F45C386E4A7C634ADAE70@DM6PR12MB4010.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2019 09:35:20 +0000
From: Gustavo Pimentel <Gustavo.Pimentel@...opsys.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Gustavo Pimentel <Gustavo.Pimentel@...opsys.com>
CC: Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Russell King <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>,
Joao Pinto <Joao.Pinto@...opsys.com>,
"dmaengine@...r.kernel.org" <dmaengine@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] dmaengine: dw-edma: fix __iomem type confusion
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 10:1:1, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 10:53 AM Gustavo Pimentel
> <Gustavo.Pimentel@...opsys.com> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > static struct dentry *base_dir;
> > > static struct dw_edma *dw;
> > > -static struct dw_edma_v0_regs *regs;
> > > +static struct dw_edma_v0_regs __iomem *regs;
> >
> > Shouldn't the __iomem be next to dw_edma_v0_regs instead of the variable
> > name? I saw other drivers putting the __iomem next to the variable type,
> > therefore I assume it's the typical coding style.
>
> Yes, that seems more common indeed. Do you want to fix up
> both patches yourself when you apply them or should I send a new version?
If you could do that, it will be great.
Thanks.
>
> Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists