Return-path: Received: from mail-wg0-f46.google.com ([74.125.82.46]:61737 "EHLO mail-wg0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751816AbaH0IPl convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Aug 2014 04:15:41 -0400 Received: by mail-wg0-f46.google.com with SMTP id m15so15552846wgh.29 for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 01:15:40 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <878umaxujj.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> References: <1408961963-3682-1-git-send-email-michal.kazior@tieto.com> <1408961963-3682-4-git-send-email-michal.kazior@tieto.com> <878umaxujj.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 10:15:40 +0200 Message-ID: (sfid-20140827_101548_937926_BE404C09) Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] ath10k: make target endianess more explicit From: Michal Kazior To: Kalle Valo Cc: "ath10k@lists.infradead.org" , linux-wireless Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 27 August 2014 09:26, Kalle Valo wrote: > Michal Kazior writes: > >> Some copy engine structures are target specific >> and are uploaded to the device during >> init/configuration. >> >> This also cleans up a bit diag_mem_read/write >> implicit byteswap mess leaving only >> diag_access_read/write with an implicit endianess >> byteswap. >> >> Signed-off-by: Michal Kazior > > [...] > >> static int ath10k_pci_diag_read32(struct ath10k *ar, u32 address, u32 *value) >> { >> - return ath10k_pci_diag_read_mem(ar, address, value, sizeof(u32)); >> + __le32 val = 0; >> + int ret; >> + >> + ret = ath10k_pci_diag_read_mem(ar, address, &val, sizeof(__le32)); >> + *value = __le32_to_cpu(val); >> + >> + return ret; >> } > > For consistency, I folded a patch below. Is that ok? > > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/pci.c > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/pci.c > @@ -620,7 +620,7 @@ static int ath10k_pci_diag_read32(struct ath10k *ar, u32 address, u32 *value) > __le32 val = 0; > int ret; > > - ret = ath10k_pci_diag_read_mem(ar, address, &val, sizeof(__le32)); > + ret = ath10k_pci_diag_read_mem(ar, address, &val, sizeof(val)); > *value = __le32_to_cpu(val); > > return ret; > > https://github.com/kvalo/ath/commit/1850a415873cb34a6f84b699dfb9a283df3252ec I'm okay with that, thanks. Michał