Re: [PATCH v3] staging: vt6655: Macro with braces issue change to inline function

[Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Mon, Feb 06, 2023 at 12:39:08AM +0100, Guru Mehar Rachaputi wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 05, 2023 at 08:12:31PM +0100, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> > Le 05/02/2023 à 19:11, Guru Mehar Rachaputi a écrit :
> > > This patch is to fix checkpatch warning: "Macro argument 'iobase' may be better
> > > as '(iobase)' to avoid precedence issues" changed to inline function. In
> > > relation to this, names of the callers of macro are also modified to call
> > > this function.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Guru Mehar Rachaputi <gurumeharrachaputi@gmail.com>
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > this patch should be v4.
> > You re-sent it with a modified commit message (the position of your S-o-b)
> > 
> > The idea behind patch versions is to help maintainer. With the way you did,
> > now 2 patches stating v3 are available.
> > Which one is the correct one?
> > The maintainer would need to look at both, search for differences, maybe
> > look at the date of the mails.
> > A v4 would be much easier for him.
> > 
> > 
> > Also, when you send an updated version of a patch, it should always be
> > "complete". I mean that the patch below seems to need v2, and maybe even v1
> > (which is apparently not on the linux-kernel mailing list).
> > 
> > A maintainer can't know by himself what is needed and what is not.
> > 
> > So you should resend a new patch.
> > It should be a v4, and it should include what is needed from (v1?), v2 and
> > v3 all together.
> > 
> > CJ
> > 
> > 
> > > ---
> > > Changes in v3:
> > > 	- Whitespace error from checkpatch fixed
> > > 
> > > Changes in v2:
> > > 	- Macros with one statement that is to call 'iowrite8' function changed
> > > 	to inline function as reviewed by gregkh@linuxfoundation.org.
> > > 	In relation to this, names of the callers of macro are also modified
> > > 	to call this function.
> > > ---
> > >   drivers/staging/vt6655/card.c    | 3 +--
> > >   drivers/staging/vt6655/channel.c | 2 +-
> > >   drivers/staging/vt6655/mac.h     | 4 ++--
> > >   3 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/vt6655/card.c b/drivers/staging/vt6655/card.c
> > > index a6ff496b01b6..d2d122dc16d8 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/staging/vt6655/card.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/staging/vt6655/card.c
> > > @@ -643,8 +643,7 @@ void CARDvSetRSPINF(struct vnt_private *priv, u8 bb_type)
> > >   				   &byRsvTime);
> > >   	iowrite16(MAKEWORD(byTxRate, byRsvTime), priv->port_offset + MAC_REG_RSPINF_A_72);
> > >   	/* Set to Page0 */
> > > -        vt6655_mac_select_page0(priv->port_offset);
> > > -
> > > +	vt6655_mac_select_page0(priv->port_offset);
> > >   	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&priv->lock, flags);
> > >   }
> > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/vt6655/channel.c b/drivers/staging/vt6655/channel.c
> > > index e9a44bcebe32..60b445c38424 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/staging/vt6655/channel.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/staging/vt6655/channel.c
> > > @@ -121,7 +121,7 @@ bool set_channel(struct vnt_private *priv, struct ieee80211_channel *ch)
> > >   		iowrite8(priv->byCurPwr, priv->port_offset + MAC_REG_PWRCCK);
> > >   		RFbSetPower(priv, RATE_6M, priv->byCurrentCh);
> > >   		iowrite8(priv->byCurPwr, priv->port_offset + MAC_REG_PWROFDM);
> > > -	        vt6655_mac_select_page0(priv->port_offset);
> > > +		vt6655_mac_select_page0(priv->port_offset);
> > >   		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&priv->lock, flags);
> > >   	}
> > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/vt6655/mac.h b/drivers/staging/vt6655/mac.h
> > > index b9a7ca0fe604..ae3064303691 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/staging/vt6655/mac.h
> > > +++ b/drivers/staging/vt6655/mac.h
> > > @@ -539,12 +539,12 @@
> > >   static inline void vt6655_mac_select_page0(void __iomem *iobase)
> > >   {
> > > -        iowrite8(0, iobase + MAC_REG_PAGE1SEL);
> > > +	iowrite8(0, iobase + MAC_REG_PAGE1SEL);
> > >   }
> > >   static inline void  vt6655_mac_select_page1(void __iomem *iobase)
> > >   {
> > > -        iowrite8(1, iobase + MAC_REG_PAGE1SEL);
> > > +	iowrite8(1, iobase + MAC_REG_PAGE1SEL);
> > >   }
> > >   #define MAKEWORD(lb, hb) \
> > 
> 
> Thanks for the explaination.
> Since I amended commit message and thought as there is no new commit it
> should still be the same patch.
> 
> Is it ok if I send a new patchset based on the previous conversations?
> I have four commits now, 4th commit being just the commit message and
> this patchset doesn't have s-o-b issue.

Look at other submissions on the mailing lists.  When you submit a new
version of a patch, it is stand-alone, with no dependancies on anything
else, otherwise tracking that would be impossible, right?

I suggest reading through the kernelnewbies.org "first patch submission"
tutorial first as I think it will answer questions like this.

good luck!

greg k-h