Re: [PATCH v2] i2c-pasemi: PASemi I2C controller IRQ enablement

Michael Ellerman
2022-10-04T01:29:20Z

"Sven Peter" <sven@svenpeter.dev> writes:
> On Sun, Oct 2, 2022, at 16:07, Arminder Singh wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>> #define REG_MTXFIFO 0x00
>>> #define REG_MRXFIFO 0x04
>>> #define REG_SMSTA 0x14
>>> +#define REG_IMASK 0x18
>>
>>> This doesn't seem to be aligned correctly, this file seems to use a tab
>>> to separate the register name and the offset and you used spaces here.
>>
>>> @@ -15,7 +16,11 @@ struct pasemi_smbus {
>>> struct i2c_adapter adapter;
>>> void __iomem *ioaddr;
>>> unsigned int clk_div;
>>> - int hw_rev;
>>> + int hw_rev;
>>> + int use_irq;
>>> + struct completion irq_completion;
>>
>>> This doesn't seem to be aligned correctly and the hw_rev line
>>> doesn't have to be changed.
>>
>> I'm sorry for the alignment issues in the patch, I genuinely didn't notice
>> them as from the perspective of my primary editor (Visual Studio Code)
>> the entries were aligned. I just saw them when opening the files in
>> nano.
>
> No worries, it's just a small nit and quickly fixed after all! :)
>
>>
>> Does fixing the alignment issues and the commit description justify a v3
>> of the patch or should the minor fixes go out as a "resend"? Just not sure
>> in this particular case as the fixes seem to be very minor ones.
>
> I'd send a v3. I've only used resend when e.g. my previous mail provider
> messed up and silently converted all my outgoing mails to HTML.

If you've modified the patches then it's not a "resend":

https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html#don-t-get-discouraged-or-impatient

So yeah send a v3 in this case.

cheers