Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Feedback-ID: i51094778:Fastmail
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.7.0-alpha0-968-g04df58079d-fm-20220921.001-g04df5807
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <5e89999e-5c9d-428c-a6c6-b454fb47aaa3@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR01MB5358FB185A18D2E6C22A45FE9F589@MN2PR01MB5358.prod.exchangelabs.com>
References: <Yzl16W6+poH8/8h4@shikoro>
 <MN2PR01MB5358FB185A18D2E6C22A45FE9F589@MN2PR01MB5358.prod.exchangelabs.com>
Date:   Sun, 02 Oct 2022 17:02:07 +0200
From:   "Sven Peter" <sven@svenpeter.dev>
To:     "Arminder Singh" <arminders208@outlook.com>,
        "Wolfram Sang" <wsa@kernel.org>
Cc:     "Alyssa Rosenzweig" <alyssa@rosenzweig.io>, asahi@lists.linux.dev,
        "Benjamin Herrenschmidt" <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
        "Christian Zigotzky" <chzigotzky@xenosoft.de>,
        "Darren Stevens" <darren@stevens-zone.net>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
        "Hector Martin" <marcan@marcan.st>,
        "Michael Ellerman" <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
        "Paul Mackerras" <paulus@samba.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] i2c-pasemi: PASemi I2C controller IRQ enablement
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

Hi,


On Sun, Oct 2, 2022, at 16:07, Arminder Singh wrote:
> Hi,
>
>>  #define REG_MTXFIFO	0x00
>>  #define REG_MRXFIFO	0x04
>>  #define REG_SMSTA	0x14
>> +#define REG_IMASK   0x18
>
>> This doesn't seem to be aligned correctly, this file seems to use a tab
>> to separate the register name and the offset and you used spaces here.
>
>> @@ -15,7 +16,11 @@ struct pasemi_smbus {
>>  	struct i2c_adapter	 adapter;
>>  	void __iomem		*ioaddr;
>>  	unsigned int		 clk_div;
>> -	int			 hw_rev;
>> +	int			         hw_rev;
>> +	int                  use_irq;
>> +	struct completion    irq_completion;
>
>> This doesn't seem to be aligned correctly and the hw_rev line
>> doesn't have to be changed.
>
> I'm sorry for the alignment issues in the patch, I genuinely didn't notice
> them as from the perspective of my primary editor (Visual Studio Code)
> the entries were aligned. I just saw them when opening the files in
> nano.

No worries, it's just a small nit and quickly fixed after all! :)

>
> Does fixing the alignment issues and the commit description justify a v3
> of the patch or should the minor fixes go out as a "resend"? Just not sure
> in this particular case as the fixes seem to be very minor ones.

I'd send a v3. I've only used resend when e.g. my previous mail provider
messed up and silently converted all my outgoing mails to HTML.


Best,

Sven