[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YMmdKrnX5iIaUZcC@kroah.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2021 08:41:46 +0200
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: "Leizhen (ThunderTown)" <thunder.leizhen@...wei.com>
Cc: Johannes Thumshirn <johannes.thumshirn@....com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Johannes Thumshirn <jth@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] mcb: Use DEFINE_RES_MEM() to simplify code
On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 09:31:37AM +0800, Leizhen (ThunderTown) wrote:
>
>
> On 2021/6/15 23:42, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 11:55:28PM +0900, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
> >> From: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@...wei.com>
> >>
> >> The value of '.end' should be "start + size - 1". So the previous writing
> >> should have omitted subtracted 1.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@...wei.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn <jth@...nel.org>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/mcb/mcb-lpc.c | 13 ++-----------
> >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/mcb/mcb-lpc.c b/drivers/mcb/mcb-lpc.c
> >> index 506676754538..53decd89876e 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/mcb/mcb-lpc.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/mcb/mcb-lpc.c
> >> @@ -105,17 +105,8 @@ static int mcb_lpc_create_platform_device(const struct dmi_system_id *id)
> >> return ret;
> >> }
> >>
> >> -static struct resource sc24_fpga_resource = {
> >> - .start = 0xe000e000,
> >> - .end = 0xe000e000 + CHAM_HEADER_SIZE,
> >> - .flags = IORESOURCE_MEM,
> >> -};
> >> -
> >> -static struct resource sc31_fpga_resource = {
> >> - .start = 0xf000e000,
> >> - .end = 0xf000e000 + CHAM_HEADER_SIZE,
> >> - .flags = IORESOURCE_MEM,
> >> -};
> >> +static struct resource sc24_fpga_resource = DEFINE_RES_MEM(0xe000e000, CHAM_HEADER_SIZE);
> >> +static struct resource sc31_fpga_resource = DEFINE_RES_MEM(0xf000e000, CHAM_HEADER_SIZE);
> >
> > Does this simplify stuff, or does it fix a bug with the existing
> > definition?
>
> It does not fix a bug, the actual value of .end should be "0xe000e000 + CHAM_HEADER_SIZE - 1".
> There is no functional problem, just a little more memory. So it's just been corrected in the
> process of simplification.
>
> Do you think it's necessary to split it into two patches?
No need, I just want to know if this is a fix that needs to go to older
kernels as well. The text was very vague.
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists