Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 15 Feb 2018 21:24:56 +0100 (CET)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To:     Lina Iyer <ilina@codeaurora.org>
cc:     jason@lakedaemon.net, marc.zyngier@arm.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
        rnayak@codeaurora.org, asathyak@codeaurora.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] drivers: irqchip: pdc: Add PDC interrupt controller
 for QCOM SoCs
In-Reply-To: <20180215202141.GC23714@codeaurora.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1802152122480.1296@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
References: <20180209165735.19151-1-ilina@codeaurora.org> <20180209165735.19151-2-ilina@codeaurora.org> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1802121430020.1158@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> <20180215202141.GC23714@codeaurora.org>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 15 Feb 2018, Lina Iyer wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 12 2018 at 13:40 +0000, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Fri, 9 Feb 2018, Lina Iyer wrote:
> > > +enum pdc_irq_config_bits {
> > > +	PDC_POLARITY_LOW	= 0,
> > > +	PDC_FALLING_EDGE	= 2,
> > > +	PDC_POLARITY_HIGH	= 4,
> > > +	PDC_RISING_EDGE		= 6,
> > > +	PDC_DUAL_EDGE		= 7,
> > 
> > My previous comment about using binary constants still stands. Please
> > either address review comments or reply at least. Ignoring reviews is not
> > an option.
> > 
> > Aside of that I really have to ask about the naming of these constants. Are
> > these names hardware register nomenclature? If yes, they are disgusting. If
> > no, they are still disgusting, but should be changed to sensible ones,
> > which just match the IRQ_TYPE naming convention.
> > 
> >    PDC_LEVEL_LOW	= 000b,
> >    PDC_EDGE_FALLING	= 010b,
> >    ....
> > 
> > 
> Checkpatch doesn't like binary constants. I guess I will need to keep
> the enum definitions in hex or decimal. I will remove the binary from
> the comments though.

Well checkpatch is not always right.

> 
> commit 95e2c6023b0e4c8499fb521697f79215f69135fe
> Author: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
> Date:   Wed Jul 3 15:05:20 2013 -0700
> 
>    checkpatch: warn when using gcc's binary constant ("0b") extension
> 
>    The gcc extension for binary constants that start with 0b is only
>    supported with gcc version 4.3 or higher.

Can anything of this be compiled with gcc < 4.3?  

Thanks,

	tglx