Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 4 May 2020 20:37:16 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To:     "Shenhar, Talel" <talel@amazon.com>
Cc:     mchehab@kernel.org, james.morse@arm.com, davem@davemloft.net,
        gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, nicolas.ferre@microchip.com,
        robh+dt@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
        will@kernel.org, linux-edac@vger.kernel.org,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, dwmw@amazon.co.uk,
        benh@kernel.crashing.org, hhhawa@amazon.com, ronenk@amazon.com,
        jonnyc@amazon.com, hanochu@amazon.com, eitan@amazon.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] EDAC: al-mc-edac: Introduce Amazon's Annapurna
 Labs Memory Controller EDAC
Message-ID: <20200504183716.GJ15046@zn.tnic>
References: <20200224134132.23924-1-talel@amazon.com>
 <20200224134132.23924-3-talel@amazon.com>
 <20200428113950.GB11272@zn.tnic>
 <46ccdb47-f28d-63f7-e759-1ba34e98add8@amazon.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <46ccdb47-f28d-63f7-e759-1ba34e98add8@amazon.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 01:16:10PM +0300, Shenhar, Talel wrote:
> > > +     mci = edac_mc_alloc(0, ARRAY_SIZE(layers), layers,
> > > +                         sizeof(struct al_mc_edac));
> > You can let that line stick out.
> 
> I rather avoid having this as a checkpatch warnning... (automation and
> stuff...)

checkpatch.pl - while useful - should not be taken to the letter and
human brain should be applied to sanity check it what it warns about.

> This line break does seems to my eye as too hard to read.
> 
> Let me know if you feel strongly about it.

I'm just sayin' - in the end of the day you'll be staring at that code -
not me - so whatever *you* prefer. :-)

Just don't follow tools blindly.

> > > +     if (al_mc->irq_ue <= 0 || al_mc->irq_ce <= 0)
> > Shouldn't this be && here?
> > 
> > I mean, you want to poll when neither of the IRQs can be found. But then
> > if you find one of them and not the other, what do you do? Poll and
> > interrupt? Is that case even possible?
> 
> Correct.
> 
> In case dt defined interrupt line only for one type and not for the other,
> than the interrupt mode shall be used for one of them while polling mode for
> the other.

That warrants a comment above it.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette