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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 1/5] venus: firmware: add routine to reset ARM9
To:     Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>,
        Vikash Garodia <vgarodia@codeaurora.org>, hverkuil@xs4all.nl,
        mchehab@kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     linux-media@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, acourbot@chromium.org
References: <1539005572-803-1-git-send-email-vgarodia@codeaurora.org>
 <1539005572-803-2-git-send-email-vgarodia@codeaurora.org>
 <fffd5b1f-73b5-81d5-a95b-a2dc9db1961d@linaro.org>
 <864470f074e634e7276bf999e3c3704b58c1e913.camel@perches.com>
From:   Stanimir Varbanov <stanimir.varbanov@linaro.org>
Message-ID: <9d47c2d4-3a36-f05f-74c1-0d6e98d73314@linaro.org>
Date:   Thu, 18 Oct 2018 11:41:26 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <864470f074e634e7276bf999e3c3704b58c1e913.camel@perches.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Joe,

On 10/18/2018 04:42 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-10-17 at 11:49 +0300, Stanimir Varbanov wrote:
>> On 10/08/2018 04:32 PM, Vikash Garodia wrote:
>>> Add routine to reset the ARM9 and brings it out of reset. Also
>>> abstract the Venus CPU state handling with a new function. This
>>> is in preparation to add PIL functionality in venus driver.
> []
>>> diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/qcom/venus/core.h b/drivers/media/platform/qcom/venus/core.h
> []
>>> @@ -129,6 +130,7 @@ struct venus_core {
>>>  	struct device *dev;
>>>  	struct device *dev_dec;
>>>  	struct device *dev_enc;
>>> +	bool use_tz;
>>
>> could you make it unsigned? For more info please run checkpatch --strict.
>>
>> I know that we have structure members of type bool already - that should
>> be fixed with follow-up patches, I guess.
> 
> That's probably not necessary.
> 
> I personally have no issue with bool struct members that
> are only used on a transitory basis and not used by hardware
> or shared between multiple cpus with different hardware
> alignment requirements.

Thanks for the clarification. I personally have preference to 'unsigned'
for such flag, but let Hans decide which one to take.

> 
> Nothing in this struct is saved or shared.
> 
> Perhaps the checkpatch message should be expanded to
> enumerate when bool use in a struct is acceptable.
> 

It'd be good to explain more, because it sounds imperative to every
structure.

-- 
regards,
Stan