From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lb0-f175.google.com ([209.85.217.175]:41487 "EHLO mail-lb0-f175.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751745AbaF1AWD (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jun 2014 20:22:03 -0400 Received: by mail-lb0-f175.google.com with SMTP id n15so4526901lbi.34 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2014 17:22:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <53AE0ABB.4010501@cogentembedded.com> Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2014 04:22:19 +0400 From: Sergei Shtylyov MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Phil Edworthy CC: Simon Horman , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, Bjorn Helgaas Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] PCI: host: pcie-rcar: Style and formatting changes. References: <1403888155-9709-1-git-send-email-phil.edworthy@renesas.com> <1403888155-9709-3-git-send-email-phil.edworthy@renesas.com> <20140628001448.GE27128@verge.net.au> <20140628001542.GA32431@verge.net.au> In-Reply-To: <20140628001542.GA32431@verge.net.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Sender: linux-pci-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hello. On 06/28/2014 04:15 AM, Simon Horman wrote: >>> This patch just makes symbol and function name changes to avoid >>> potential conflicts, along with minor formatting changes. >>> The only other change is to replace an arg passed into a func >>> with a local variable. >>> Signed-off-by: Phil Edworthy >>> --- >>> drivers/pci/host/pcie-rcar.c | 131 ++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------- >>> 1 file changed, 67 insertions(+), 64 deletions(-) >>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/host/pcie-rcar.c b/drivers/pci/host/pcie-rcar.c >>> index 680a8cc..efdea07 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/pci/host/pcie-rcar.c >>> +++ b/drivers/pci/host/pcie-rcar.c [...] >>> @@ -318,14 +319,15 @@ static struct pci_ops rcar_pcie_ops = { >>> .write = rcar_pcie_write_conf, >>> }; >>> >>> -static void rcar_pcie_setup_window(int win, struct resource *res, >>> - struct rcar_pcie *pcie) >>> +static void rcar_pcie_setup_window(int win, struct rcar_pcie *pcie) >>> { >>> + struct resource *res = &pcie->res[win]; >>> + >> >> The removal of the res parameter is not in keeping with the changelog. >> Could you break it out into a separate patch? > > Sorry, I see that it is mentioned in the changelog. > But could you split the patch all the same? I agree. Generally, you should not mix several changes of a different nature in one patch. WBR, Sergei From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sergei Shtylyov Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2014 00:22:19 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] PCI: host: pcie-rcar: Style and formatting changes. Message-Id: <53AE0ABB.4010501@cogentembedded.com> List-Id: References: <1403888155-9709-1-git-send-email-phil.edworthy@renesas.com> <1403888155-9709-3-git-send-email-phil.edworthy@renesas.com> <20140628001448.GE27128@verge.net.au> <20140628001542.GA32431@verge.net.au> In-Reply-To: <20140628001542.GA32431@verge.net.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Phil Edworthy Cc: Simon Horman , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, Bjorn Helgaas Hello. On 06/28/2014 04:15 AM, Simon Horman wrote: >>> This patch just makes symbol and function name changes to avoid >>> potential conflicts, along with minor formatting changes. >>> The only other change is to replace an arg passed into a func >>> with a local variable. >>> Signed-off-by: Phil Edworthy >>> --- >>> drivers/pci/host/pcie-rcar.c | 131 ++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------- >>> 1 file changed, 67 insertions(+), 64 deletions(-) >>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/host/pcie-rcar.c b/drivers/pci/host/pcie-rcar.c >>> index 680a8cc..efdea07 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/pci/host/pcie-rcar.c >>> +++ b/drivers/pci/host/pcie-rcar.c [...] >>> @@ -318,14 +319,15 @@ static struct pci_ops rcar_pcie_ops = { >>> .write = rcar_pcie_write_conf, >>> }; >>> >>> -static void rcar_pcie_setup_window(int win, struct resource *res, >>> - struct rcar_pcie *pcie) >>> +static void rcar_pcie_setup_window(int win, struct rcar_pcie *pcie) >>> { >>> + struct resource *res = &pcie->res[win]; >>> + >> >> The removal of the res parameter is not in keeping with the changelog. >> Could you break it out into a separate patch? > > Sorry, I see that it is mentioned in the changelog. > But could you split the patch all the same? I agree. Generally, you should not mix several changes of a different nature in one patch. WBR, Sergei