2023-01-16 14:44:21

by Johan Hovold

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: [PATCH v4 03/19] irqdomain: Drop leftover brackets

Drop some unnecessary brackets that were left in place when the
corresponding code was updated.

Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <[email protected]>
Tested-by: Hsin-Yi Wang <[email protected]>
Tested-by: Mark-PK Tsai <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Johan Hovold <[email protected]>
---
kernel/irq/irqdomain.c | 6 ++----
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/irq/irqdomain.c b/kernel/irq/irqdomain.c
index fe9ec53fe7aa..dfd60bd49109 100644
--- a/kernel/irq/irqdomain.c
+++ b/kernel/irq/irqdomain.c
@@ -219,9 +219,8 @@ struct irq_domain *__irq_domain_add(struct fwnode_handle *fwnode, unsigned int s
domain->host_data = host_data;
domain->hwirq_max = hwirq_max;

- if (direct_max) {
+ if (direct_max)
domain->flags |= IRQ_DOMAIN_FLAG_NO_MAP;
- }

domain->revmap_size = size;

@@ -615,9 +614,8 @@ void irq_domain_associate_many(struct irq_domain *domain, unsigned int irq_base,
pr_debug("%s(%s, irqbase=%i, hwbase=%i, count=%i)\n", __func__,
of_node_full_name(of_node), irq_base, (int)hwirq_base, count);

- for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {
+ for (i = 0; i < count; i++)
irq_domain_associate(domain, irq_base + i, hwirq_base + i);
- }
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(irq_domain_associate_many);

--
2.38.2


2023-01-18 00:27:05

by Thomas Gleixner

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 03/19] irqdomain: Drop leftover brackets

On Mon, Jan 16 2023 at 14:50, Johan Hovold wrote:
> Drop some unnecessary brackets that were left in place when the
> corresponding code was updated.

This is really the wrong patch order. Real fixes first, then the
cleanups and cosmetics.

2023-01-18 10:10:24

by Johan Hovold

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 03/19] irqdomain: Drop leftover brackets

On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 10:19:02PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 16 2023 at 14:50, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > Drop some unnecessary brackets that were left in place when the
> > corresponding code was updated.
>
> This is really the wrong patch order. Real fixes first, then the
> cleanups and cosmetics.

Yeah, that's what I'd normally do. Perhaps I took Marc's:

No, let's put the code in shape *first*, then add work on the
locking, as it should make the patch simpler. Backports aren't
my concern, really.

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/

too literally.

Johan