From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from galois.linutronix.de (Galois.linutronix.de [193.142.43.55]) (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 29EA86BFC0 for ; Tue, 13 Aug 2024 08:32:45 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1723537967; cv=none; b=t00cQLhT4DFuM8svUYNxFOg2tIqALxj8EicD9W5vodDXwcIyR7Mn+bN6K/lNi0lNb1M3vTt20YI+4uo5ybmfcp91xXLHZ01mUR6xznvZExuEomPbEsJCwp4TI6jdF/knZDOJmNcw5gmHgs2O5nF1KtW08EoqRzQG9TPTgDN3vDg= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1723537967; c=relaxed/simple; bh=gcwMyVmIie1YHSkNUh7M2SXPnib/2BebV8hlry2PKlY=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=GRu639bze/6FIYMosVH5GJXa2qtwSOxLNf0ovj8BF8wUzbZQpbwEZ60SgyOf9UkFifj1JU3nfzw6wOvASzaHdBGJcEEe+50SyDsCJhZMtTu2WCC7tAY3KeeBhnT4GX3kcWneJxLurL5MdgJsO1J2n7dChr76rjWg1xP9FthIh38= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=0viyZsIx; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=JPtvMgUt; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="0viyZsIx"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="JPtvMgUt" From: Thomas Gleixner DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020; t=1723537964; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=gcwMyVmIie1YHSkNUh7M2SXPnib/2BebV8hlry2PKlY=; b=0viyZsIxbM51bEsCpG9ji9cxODaBPPCvX2Tbnh5rQEFJYlDmczo56hXVZPFwdSdv9sn/XP 1y5+IGF/n/EnBuBk+ClE7AMKRKSNNAFC/AX7g7UztHiB2qkLmMQBV8JE2mxSjnKkf6iK9a 0ZH3sVw2d2nk0xFJ5AAL7kOEWyePa1Y7QInkc/y2bT4VoJJ/tP5nCkUnMuJokmhG0s/PWM 4dNI0yhhJ+RLxFhfzzkKMvUmZ0oeVvk9ekeAewc1wecbnDfMDwO6ncgYOhiBjFI8EctD7r KWTPwmeBUtbLi/RbGHPeWe/u3atlm9XrENdkL8ewT7uUoqZc2ol0BQrepLpyFQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020e; t=1723537964; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=gcwMyVmIie1YHSkNUh7M2SXPnib/2BebV8hlry2PKlY=; b=JPtvMgUtjEpnEdBBe9SVZ6DUyJzXW6jlXBVMIr3DgNKbLwmClsMa5+W5fsSjTZ0FP0nx08 OXtilZa4/LIY5xCQ== To: Andy Shevchenko , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: Herve Codina , Matti Vaittinen , Mark Brown , Andy Shevchenko Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] irqdomain: Unify checks for bus_token In-Reply-To: <20240812193101.1266625-2-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> References: <20240812193101.1266625-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> <20240812193101.1266625-2-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2024 10:32:44 +0200 Message-ID: <87o75wrff7.ffs@tglx> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain On Mon, Aug 12 2024 at 22:29, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > The code uses if (bus_token) and if (bus_token == DOMAIN_BUS_ANY). > Since bus_token is enum, the later is more robust against changes. > Unify all checks to follow the latter variant. > > Fixes: 0b21add71bd9 ("irqdomain: Handle domain bus token in irq_domain_create()") > Fixes: 1bf2c9282927 ("irqdomain: Cleanup domain name allocation") I'm fine with the change per se, but what does this fix? It's correct code, no?