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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190617131918.2518727-1-arnd@arndb.de> <DM6PR12MB401058325016417472CD5717DAE70@DM6PR12MB4010.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <DM6PR12MB401058325016417472CD5717DAE70@DM6PR12MB4010.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Date:   Fri, 21 Jun 2019 11:01:01 +0200
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a1qhj_YYTo8aKgbdufjMFXfa3WNdqY6m=222fFxOcQaZg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dmaengine: dw-edma: fix __iomem type confusion
To:     Gustavo Pimentel <Gustavo.Pimentel@synopsys.com>
Cc:     Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        Russell King <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk>,
        Joao Pinto <Joao.Pinto@synopsys.com>,
        "dmaengine@vger.kernel.org" <dmaengine@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 10:53 AM Gustavo Pimentel
<Gustavo.Pimentel@synopsys.com> wrote:

> >
> >  static struct dentry                         *base_dir;
> >  static struct dw_edma                                *dw;
> > -static struct dw_edma_v0_regs                        *regs;
> > +static struct dw_edma_v0_regs                        __iomem *regs;
>
> Shouldn't the __iomem be next to dw_edma_v0_regs instead of the variable
> name? I saw other drivers putting the __iomem next to the variable type,
> therefore I assume it's the typical coding style.

Yes, that seems more common indeed. Do you want to fix up
both patches yourself when you apply them or should I send a new version?

         Arnd