Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-31351-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230804104602.395892-1-ckeepax@opensource.cirrus.com>
 <20230804104602.395892-7-ckeepax@opensource.cirrus.com> <Zali4qxdegY7H6eY@surfacebook.localdomain>
 <aec96f5a-b759-48c7-a5ec-bafe3bfa5357@sirena.org.uk> <CAHp75Vd6JtW4ddbSPXUp6WgEdBJizjwnS-XZzwLcXWWLxFWp-w@mail.gmail.com>
 <b1889bb0-2b9f-477c-80d3-a636b9017ea4@sirena.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <b1889bb0-2b9f-477c-80d3-a636b9017ea4@sirena.org.uk>
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2024 18:13:59 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHp75Ve=SR_M5NGtu50Eu1Gw_g8mGfk1RAub22QZn3rwGNw+ug@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 6/6] ASoC: cs42l43: Add support for the cs42l43
To: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: Charles Keepax <ckeepax@opensource.cirrus.com>, lee@kernel.org, robh+dt@kernel.org, 
	krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org, conor+dt@kernel.org, 
	linus.walleij@linaro.org, vkoul@kernel.org, lgirdwood@gmail.com, 
	yung-chuan.liao@linux.intel.com, sanyog.r.kale@intel.com, 
	pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com, alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, 
	patches@opensource.cirrus.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, linux-spi@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 12:07=E2=80=AFAM Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wr=
ote:
> On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 10:46:28PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 8:11=E2=80=AFPM Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>=
 wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 07:41:54PM +0200, andy.shevchenko@gmail.com w=
rote:
> > > > Fri, Aug 04, 2023 at 11:46:02AM +0100, Charles Keepax kirjoitti:
>
> > > > > +   unsigned int hs2 =3D 0x2 << CS42L43_HSDET_MODE_SHIFT;
>
> > > > BIT(1) ?
>
> > > Given that this is writing a value into a register field called "MODE=
"
> > > it seems very likely that it's an enumeration value rather than a
> > > bitmask (and similarly for all the other places where you're making
> > > similar comments).  Please think a bit more about the code being
> > > commented on when making these minor stylistic comments.
>
> > I read a bit further and have given a comment about this as you put it
> > above that they are plain values.
> > Please, read my comments in full.
>
> I did eventually find that while going through the other comments but
> given that the earlier ones hadn't been revised and it was all a bunch
> of different fields it still seemed useful to highlight, if nothing else
> it was a little unclear that your later comment applied to all the
> fields you were asking for updates to.

Yeah, I was thinking about that during the review, that's why I first
commented and then concluded that those comments are kinda bogus.

> In general in a case like this where the code is already in tree it does
> seem like it'd be better to just write patche for the stylistic issues.

Sure. I believe Charles will address some of them, if not all.

--=20
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko