Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 11 Oct 2023 13:32:23 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v9 4/4] clk: qcom: add clock controller driver for qca8386/qca8084 | From | Konrad Dybcio <> |
| |
On 10/11/23 13:26, Jie Luo wrote: > > > On 10/11/2023 6:25 PM, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote: >> On 23/09/2023 12:21, Luo Jie wrote: >>> The clock controller driver of qca8386/qca8084 is registered >>> as the MDIO device, the hardware register is accessed by MDIO bus >>> that is normally used to access general PHY device, which is >>> different from the current existed qcom clock controller drivers >>> using ioremap to access hardware clock registers. >> >> "nsscc-qca8k is accessed via an MDIO bus" >> >>> MDIO bus is common utilized by both qca8386/qca8084 and other >> >> commonly >> >>> PHY devices, so the mutex lock mdio_bus->mdio_lock should be >>> used instead of using the mutex lock of remap. >>> >>> To access the hardware clock registers of qca8386/qca8084, there >>> is special MDIO frame sequence(three MDIO read/write operations) >>> need to be sent to device. >> >> "there is a special MDIO frame sequence" >> >> "which needs to be sent to the device" > > I will update the comments, thanks Bryan. > >> >> the following indentation splat from checkpatch >> >> CHECK: Alignment should match open parenthesis >> #2071: FILE: drivers/clk/qcom/nsscc-qca8k.c:2004: >> + ret = __mdiobus_write(bus, switch_phy_id, (reg | >> QCA8K_REG_DATA_UPPER_16_BITS), >> + upper_16_bits(val)); >> >> CHECK: Alignment should match open parenthesis >> #2131: FILE: drivers/clk/qcom/nsscc-qca8k.c:2064: >> +static int qca8k_regmap_update_bits(void *context, unsigned int regaddr, >> + unsigned int mask, unsigned int value) >> >> total: 0 errors, 1 warnings, 2 checks, 2162 lines checked >> >> NOTE: For some of the reported defects, checkpatch may be able to >> mechanically convert to the typical style using --fix or >> --fix-inplace. >> >> 0004-clk-qcom-add-clock-controller-driver-for-qca8386-qca.patch has >> style problems, please review. > > Thanks Bryan for the review. The code line mentioned by CHECK is more > than 100 columns, so i separate the lines. Please read what checkpatch tells you.
It asks you to change
very_long_func_name(arg1, arg2, arg3);
to
very_long_func_name(arg1, arg2, arg3);
(remember tab len is 8 for the linux kernel)
Konrad
| |