Use proper spacing for array calculation. Issue is reported by
checkpatch.pl --strict.
Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <[email protected]>
---
drivers/dma/xilinx/xilinx_dpdma.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/dma/xilinx/xilinx_dpdma.c b/drivers/dma/xilinx/xilinx_dpdma.c
index 0b67083c95d0..b280a53e8570 100644
--- a/drivers/dma/xilinx/xilinx_dpdma.c
+++ b/drivers/dma/xilinx/xilinx_dpdma.c
@@ -531,7 +531,7 @@ static void xilinx_dpdma_sw_desc_set_dma_addrs(struct xilinx_dpdma_device *xdev,
for (i = 1; i < num_src_addr; i++) {
u32 *addr = &hw_desc->src_addr2;
- addr[i-1] = lower_32_bits(dma_addr[i]);
+ addr[i - 1] = lower_32_bits(dma_addr[i]);
if (xdev->ext_addr) {
u32 *addr_ext = &hw_desc->addr_ext_23;
--
2.32.0
On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 01:07:38PM +0200, Michal Simek wrote:
> Use proper spacing for array calculation. Issue is reported by
> checkpatch.pl --strict.
>
> Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <[email protected]>
> ---
>
> drivers/dma/xilinx/xilinx_dpdma.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/dma/xilinx/xilinx_dpdma.c b/drivers/dma/xilinx/xilinx_dpdma.c
> index 0b67083c95d0..b280a53e8570 100644
> --- a/drivers/dma/xilinx/xilinx_dpdma.c
> +++ b/drivers/dma/xilinx/xilinx_dpdma.c
> @@ -531,7 +531,7 @@ static void xilinx_dpdma_sw_desc_set_dma_addrs(struct xilinx_dpdma_device *xdev,
> for (i = 1; i < num_src_addr; i++) {
> u32 *addr = &hw_desc->src_addr2;
>
> - addr[i-1] = lower_32_bits(dma_addr[i]);
> + addr[i - 1] = lower_32_bits(dma_addr[i]);
I don't mind either way.
Reviewed-by: Laurent Pinchart <[email protected]>
>
> if (xdev->ext_addr) {
> u32 *addr_ext = &hw_desc->addr_ext_23;
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
On 23-06-21, 13:07, Michal Simek wrote:
> Use proper spacing for array calculation. Issue is reported by
> checkpatch.pl --strict.
Applied, thanks
--
~Vinod