Antonio,
On Tue, 10 May 2022 17:41:17 +0100,
Antonio Borneo <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> From: Ludovic Barre <[email protected]>
>
> If no parent, there is no specific action to do in
> stm32 irqchip, and so return IRQ_SET_MASK_OK_DONE.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ludovic Barre <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Antonio Borneo <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/irqchip/irq-stm32-exti.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-stm32-exti.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-stm32-exti.c
> index 9d18f47040eb..10c9c742c216 100644
> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-stm32-exti.c
> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-stm32-exti.c
> @@ -614,7 +614,7 @@ static int stm32_exti_h_set_affinity(struct irq_data *d,
> if (d->parent_data->chip)
> return irq_chip_set_affinity_parent(d, dest, force);
>
> - return -EINVAL;
> + return IRQ_SET_MASK_OK_DONE;
> }
>
> static int __maybe_unused stm32_exti_h_suspend(void)
<rant>
Can you *please* use a cover-letter when sending more that a single
patch? I expect there is an overarching motive to this series. Where
is it described?
Also, please look at the way the subject lines are written for most
irqchip patches:
irqchip/foo: Frobify the bar callback return value
Note the capital letter after the ':', and the fact that it starts
with a verb. Here, I would have liked to see:
irqchip/stm32-exti: Fix set_affinity() return value
and leave the meat of the description to the commit log (instead of
saying the exact same thing twice).
</rant>
Thanks,
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
Hi Marc,
On Tue, 2022-05-10 at 19:34 +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> Antonio,
>
> On Tue, 10 May 2022 17:41:17 +0100,
> Antonio Borneo <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > From: Ludovic Barre <[email protected]>
> >
> > If no parent, there is no specific action to do in
> > stm32 irqchip, and so return IRQ_SET_MASK_OK_DONE.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ludovic Barre <[email protected]>
> > Signed-off-by: Antonio Borneo <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > drivers/irqchip/irq-stm32-exti.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-stm32-exti.c
> > b/drivers/irqchip/irq-stm32-exti.c
> > index 9d18f47040eb..10c9c742c216 100644
> > --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-stm32-exti.c
> > +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-stm32-exti.c
> > @@ -614,7 +614,7 @@ static int stm32_exti_h_set_affinity(struct
> > irq_data *d,
> > if (d->parent_data->chip)
> > return irq_chip_set_affinity_parent(d, dest,
> > force);
> >
> > - return -EINVAL;
> > + return IRQ_SET_MASK_OK_DONE;
> > }
> >
> > static int __maybe_unused stm32_exti_h_suspend(void)
>
> <rant>
> Can you *please* use a cover-letter when sending more that a single
> patch? I expect there is an overarching motive to this series. Where
> is it described?
>
> Also, please look at the way the subject lines are written for most
> irqchip patches:
>
> irqchip/foo: Frobify the bar callback return value
>
> Note the capital letter after the ':', and the fact that it starts
> with a verb. Here, I would have liked to see:
>
> irqchip/stm32-exti: Fix set_affinity() return value
>
> and leave the meat of the description to the commit log (instead of
> saying the exact same thing twice).
> </rant>
thanks for your review and the hints on this series.
I will shortly send a V2.
Regards,
Antonio