linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] clk: ralink: make system controller node a reset provider

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 6 Oct 2021 13:14:58 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:     Sergio Paracuellos <sergio.paracuellos@...il.com>
Cc:     Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        "open list:COMMON CLK FRAMEWORK" <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, NeilBrown <neil@...wn.name>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        John Crispin <john@...ozen.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] clk: ralink: make system controller node a reset
 provider

On Wed, Oct 06, 2021 at 12:02:12PM +0200, Sergio Paracuellos wrote:
> Hi Dan,
> 
> Thanks for the review. Comments below.
> 
> On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 10:29 AM Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 06, 2021 at 08:12:03AM +0200, Sergio Paracuellos wrote:
> > > @@ -398,6 +401,76 @@ static void __init mt7621_clk_init(struct device_node *node)
> > >  }
> > >  CLK_OF_DECLARE_DRIVER(mt7621_clk, "mediatek,mt7621-sysc", mt7621_clk_init);
> > >
> > > +struct mt7621_rst {
> > > +     struct reset_controller_dev rcdev;
> > > +     struct regmap *sysc;
> > > +};
> > > +
> > > +static inline struct mt7621_rst *to_mt7621_rst(struct reset_controller_dev *dev)
> >
> > No need to mark this as inline.  The compiler should do it automatically
> > or it will ignore the inline.
> 
> Ok, I have other functions to_* with the same inline syntax, that's
> why I have added also here. I think I will maintain it to be coherent
> and can be removed afterwards with another patch not belonging to this
> series.

Consistency is never an important goal.  It's better to be different
than to be wrong.

regards,
dan carpenter