[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <A004D09E-E9CC-4DD4-ADE7-791D63D962D3@toblux.com>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2024 03:53:00 +0200
From: Thorsten Blum <thorsten.blum@...lux.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Nicolas Pitre <nico@...xnic.net>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>,
Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: smc91x: Refactor SMC_* macros
On 30. May 2024, at 02:17, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 28 May 2024 12:44:23 +0200 Thorsten Blum wrote:
>> Use the macro parameter lp directly instead of relying on ioaddr being
>> defined in the surrounding scope.
>
> Have you tested this, or just compile tested (please mention what
> testing has been done in the commit message in the future)?
Just compile tested.
> What's the motivation - cleanup or this helps remove some warnings?
> (again, please mention in the commit message)
It's a cleanup suggested by Andrew Lunn [1][2]. His suggestion might
have been for SMC_PUSH_DATA() and SMC_PULL_DATA() only; or to add
another macro param for ioaddr if lp->base and ioaddr are different (as
in smc_probe()).
> AFAICT this will break smc_probe().
Yes, it does break smc_probe(). I'll fix it and submit a v2.
Thanks,
Thorsten
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kernel/0efd687d-3df5-49dd-b01c-d5bd977ae12e@lunn.ch/
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kernel/f192113c-9aee-47be-85f6-cd19fcb81a5e@lunn.ch/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists