From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EFCD91B652E for ; Fri, 4 Sep 2026 07:51:09 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1788508271; cv=none; b=fqd+x7ORPj5hFAwLIarSwJ581yTiVuNAAFaOl6+ZJSbxPXWLd6QV4tpSJDmOMcPH8X6lXXxZ1lfvnqzRc63ut2GL1wqgFvM/fOQcDDnB+WGXy4SIFqnf/KAY79mkelWUjTsb/bIMsZ6xjjB76fhgGDl3lPDvYexzbzounl7so9o= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1788508271; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Rr7oIkJMqoANrUyFJHTJ9WmZggW42pt3zwU9Y2fxNls=; h=From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date: Message-Id; b=NpobStfCT7S/qC2DmMY+sVWJ1sr/hTzWT5Mle0mn9fwrY1k0gQojXRpuWhBk+5pb1iVpb8LQ+z50Zy0KFoKq1f9j9Kn1+/7j37NQ+4C5sJ0BbHxRS8pMEutLtx5JDO4dK+pzkrQ+GPjM1328qOohr8epSZi6Ecippmz8x+e8ovY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=bt/E+ad7; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="bt/E+ad7" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 17A191F00A3D; Fri, 4 Sep 2026 07:51:09 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1788508269; bh=hn/20i+sqKnZ3iw6xa2eLidfypu9e7du0XwHLRbFgx0=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=bt/E+ad7swlV4wzsRznbWXfQ0COBLJNw+NFTkVqNKT/bX1TMc3aloWH33NNVtQ8OA 7sBST+vVl0eGTMh7dadN5RUS6ut/442YaXyBYATp6SYa+TLV/ZiXdHq92r0JzmMqAQ M/7jluDv1pDy5jo2RLHQ6pba5x7YAVbvlacO2vq6QBXng+5kRtmZZYnUDwRnP6ZiI8 /vWNLksgm0Acdy8COTmRrYHZjd9F2o85uEXWoLNTPvHG9Q03lQp0O/CKsXRU5xzbaV rY+x+afOa1ANwNfGhHMgwLHTFY+tzNl8Eq4VA/elJTRDYHLyWqM8sl7AKnP8buwD6N TLo8KlQIGYVgg== From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/4] firmware: raspberrypi: reorder rpi_firmware_property_tag enum Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: "Gregor Herburger" Cc: conor+dt@kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, robh@kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20260904-rpi-tryboot-v4-1-fdee8bc53ff7@linutronix.de> References: <20260904-rpi-tryboot-v4-0-fdee8bc53ff7@linutronix.de> <20260904-rpi-tryboot-v4-1-fdee8bc53ff7@linutronix.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2026 07:51:08 +0000 Message-Id: <20260904075109.17A191F00A3D@smtp.kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(= s) to consider: - [Medium] The patch claims to reorder the `rpi_firmware_property_tag` enum= by tag values but introduces a new sorting error by moving higher values i= mmediately before lower ones. -- commit 5b5e3e4d76c8fceb817f997acacf1b16bf561c0e Author: Gregor Herburger firmware: raspberrypi: reorder rpi_firmware_property_tag enum This patch reorders the tags in the rpi_firmware_property_tag enum to sort them by their tag values. It claims no functional change is intended. > diff --git a/include/soc/bcm2835/raspberrypi-firmware.h b/include/soc/bcm= 2835/raspberrypi-firmware.h > index 975bef529854a..8ad1cdbf5e9f5 100644 > --- a/include/soc/bcm2835/raspberrypi-firmware.h > +++ b/include/soc/bcm2835/raspberrypi-firmware.h [ ... ] > @@ -125,10 +125,10 @@ enum rpi_firmware_property_tag { > RPI_FIRMWARE_FRAMEBUFFER_SET_VIRTUAL_OFFSET =3D 0x00048009, > RPI_FIRMWARE_FRAMEBUFFER_SET_OVERSCAN =3D 0x0004800a, > RPI_FIRMWARE_FRAMEBUFFER_SET_PALETTE =3D 0x0004800b, > - RPI_FIRMWARE_FRAMEBUFFER_SET_TOUCHBUF =3D 0x0004801f, > - RPI_FIRMWARE_FRAMEBUFFER_SET_GPIOVIRTBUF =3D 0x00048020, > RPI_FIRMWARE_FRAMEBUFFER_SET_VSYNC =3D 0x0004800e, > RPI_FIRMWARE_FRAMEBUFFER_SET_BACKLIGHT =3D 0x0004800f, > + RPI_FIRMWARE_FRAMEBUFFER_SET_TOUCHBUF =3D 0x0004801f, > + RPI_FIRMWARE_FRAMEBUFFER_SET_GPIOVIRTBUF =3D 0x00048020, > =20 > RPI_FIRMWARE_VCHIQ_INIT =3D 0x00048010, > =20 [Severity: Medium] The commit message mentions that the enum is being ordered by tag values, but does this actually break the ordering for these values? The new placement moves RPI_FIRMWARE_FRAMEBUFFER_SET_TOUCHBUF (0x0004801f) and RPI_FIRMWARE_FRAMEBUFFER_SET_GPIOVIRTBUF (0x00048020) immediately before RPI_FIRMWARE_VCHIQ_INIT (0x00048010) in rpi_firmware_property_tag. --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260904-rpi-tryboo= t-v4-0-fdee8bc53ff7@linutronix.de?part=3D1