[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200307093922.GA29464@google.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2020 18:39:22 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>
To: Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@...all.nl>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
Hans Verkuil <hans.verkuil@...co.com>,
Tomasz Figa <tfiga@...omium.org>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@....fi>,
Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
Pawel Osciak <posciak@...omium.org>,
linux-media@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 10/11] videobuf2: add begin/end cpu_access callbacks to
dma-sg
On (20/03/07 10:32), Hans Verkuil wrote:
> >>> +static int vb2_dma_sg_dmabuf_ops_begin_cpu_access(struct dma_buf *dbuf,
> >>> + enum dma_data_direction direction)
> >>
> >> I suggest you use this style to avoid checkpatch warnings:
> >>
> >> static int
> >> vb2_dma_sg_dmabuf_ops_begin_cpu_access(struct dma_buf *dbuf,
> >> enum dma_data_direction direction)
> >
> > OK, will do.
> >
> > Just for information, my checkpatch doesn't warn me:
> >
> > $ ./scripts/checkpatch.pl outgoing/0010-videobuf2-add-begin-end-cpu_access-callbacks-to-dma-.patch
>
> We use the --strict option to checkpatch.
Got it.
-ss
Powered by blists - more mailing lists