[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CADrjBPqw-kt+4fLfJCziAJrtcV4gVM9Gubtq=7Xb8sgxq-i8uQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2025 11:10:06 +0000
From: Peter Griffin <peter.griffin@...aro.org>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
Cc: alim.akhtar@...sung.com, James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com,
martin.petersen@...cle.com, krzk@...nel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, willmcvicker@...gle.com,
tudor.ambarus@...aro.org, andre.draszik@...aro.org, ebiggers@...nel.org,
kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] scsi: ufs: exynos: Move phy calls to .exit() callback
Hi Bart,
Thanks for your review feedback!
On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 at 19:20, Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org> wrote:
>
> On 2/26/25 2:04 PM, Peter Griffin wrote:
> > +static void exynos_ufs_exit(struct ufs_hba *hba)
> > +{
> > + struct exynos_ufs *ufs = ufshcd_get_variant(hba);
> > +
> > + phy_power_off(ufs->phy);
> > + phy_exit(ufs->phy);
> > +}
> > +
> > +
>
> For future patches, please follow the convention that is used elsewhere
> in the kernel and separate functions with a single blank line instead of
> two.
That was an oversight on my part, will fix.
Thanks,
Peter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists