[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZOUOIT40/qH7VOTS@qmqm.qmqm.pl>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2023 21:36:01 +0200
From: Michał Mirosław <mirq-linux@...e.qmqm.pl>
To: Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mfd: core: Un-constify mfd_cell.of_reg
On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 09:13:40AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Aug 2023, Michał Mirosław wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 04:58:15PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > On Wed, 16 Aug 2023, Michał Mirosław wrote:
> > >
> > > > of_reg is the only constant member of struct mfd_cell. It seems to be
> > >
> > > Sorry, what?
> > >
> > > struct mfd_cell {
> > > const char *name;
> > > [...]
> > > const struct mfd_cell_acpi_match *acpi_match;
> > > [...]
> > > const struct software_node *swnode;
> > > [...]
> > > const char *of_compatible;
> > > [...]
> > > const u64 of_reg;
> > > [...]
> > > const struct resource *resources;
> > > [...]
> > > const char * const *parent_supplies;
> > > [...]
> > > };
> > [...]
> >
> > All those are pointers to const, not const fields themselves. Only
> > `of_reg` is const regardless of the whole structure.
>
> Please make that clear in the commit message.
Could you please help with the wording? I'm surprised being asked to explain
a basic C language feature in a commit message to have a patch accepted.
Could it be due to me using 'constant' instead of 'const' that made it
confusing?
Best Regards
Michał Mirosław
Powered by blists - more mailing lists