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:   Sat, 8 Jun 2019 13:45:05 +0000
From:   Geordan Neukum <gneukum1@gmail.com>
To:     Hao Xu <haoxu.linuxkernel@gmail.com>
Cc:     gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] staging: kpc2000: kpc2000_i2c: void* -> void *
Message-ID: <20190608134505.GA963@arch-01.home>
References: <1559978867-3693-1-git-send-email-haoxu.linuxkernel@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1559978867-3693-1-git-send-email-haoxu.linuxkernel@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.0 (2019-05-25)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Jun 08, 2019 at 03:27:46PM +0800, Hao Xu wrote:
> modify void* to void * for #define inb_p(a) readq((void*)a)
> and #define outb_p(d,a) writeq(d,(void*)a)
> 
> Signed-off-by: Hao Xu <haoxu.linuxkernel@gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/kpc2000/kpc2000_i2c.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/kpc2000/kpc2000_i2c.c b/drivers/staging/kpc2000/kpc2000_i2c.c
> index a434dd0..de3a0c8 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/kpc2000/kpc2000_i2c.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/kpc2000/kpc2000_i2c.c
> @@ -124,9 +124,9 @@ struct i2c_device {
>  
>  // FIXME!
>  #undef inb_p
> -#define inb_p(a) readq((void*)a)
> +#define inb_p(a) readq((void *)a)
>  #undef outb_p
> -#define outb_p(d,a) writeq(d,(void*)a)
> +#define outb_p(d,a) writeq(d,(void *)a)

Alternatively to fixing up the style here, did you consider just
removing these two macros altogether and calling [read|write]q
directly throughout the kpc_i2c driver (per the '//FIXME' comment)?

Unless, I'm misunderstanding something, these macros are shadowing the
functions [in|out]b_p, which already exist in io.h. [in|out]b_p are for
8-bit i/o transactions and [read|write]q are for 64-bit transactions, so
shadowing the original [in|out]b_p with something that actually does
64-bit transactions is probably potentially misleading here.