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 BE84849E139; Thu, 15 Oct 2026 14:35:20 +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=1792074921; cv=none; b=byowsYxpwY6E4pLrp3QbPjkGtipv/Fw0wH8UIIteJN+HhzxWhgBlB8wo+2/bbnhHkekwquPTJUAO+l6Jhv2xSR4M4EnhLqqCEk+5M7VoC26OjXSQGjXRwthBlAe1nJbdnek3kHF8Q6+iAaE9IRS86H5Fw9XhW+toeL2u4pVDdWQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1792074921; c=relaxed/simple; bh=zFbkRObKH/fCMm8g7ueKx/Uc4eaRxeM5HU/FTy/Fysk=; h=Message-ID:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type: Date; b=SaU8eEvrzown3nerMheeAw/oH6OlSG+sQsdp3Xn/7VVhUDXptltUHfSt/nnBg6uRtxrwC3YHc1ultkS3q0s8azdocy7EaTlfcNJBN1EhASMpyafc384ZLUwiqox2I3Avp25zIGS7HTHsk7Vo/5/sxUTVS4jWx3K4YUoSRmrh01w= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=hjzGSMbf; 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="hjzGSMbf" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 114351F000C4; Thu, 15 Oct 2026 14:35:20 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1792074920; bh=jK78+sdXkAYkVIFvDJ166BEtBLJyB5I14yIVxhQVhEg=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=hjzGSMbffRqHGzc6eA+RBY48b7aYLLm0QoBL9rMZhyFGE+9pAexNtGaXvL5tXYVPL sRLSOQoWWj3FMHDOC5SixoXciBTrCfURThF6GsP6zbmU6HQ1fHDhbp5cC1fNeAlBWt tQGeneAGmUcd8KNEwGEvY7S1CxQsfQWxqX1SIQrkQz/oEyrP8dTNS2+MM/GLF9guQo D7JAN2Raw/in5VgGdYKU3Y2cg/47woQu2B3zcFSssdzYmxMmJ4FOdNqi6wXPdgnhv6 Ykvk/XgWnY+xBN4lZoZPHKDTHHv3NRfyI8F7WR93EYoNsfgiJ0zXhpu96IqCKiU/qb s5hx/EU3gXk2g== Message-ID: From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 01/15] misc/arm-cla: Add driver skeleton and documentation Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: "Ryan Roberts" Cc: kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, kvm@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, robh@kernel.org, conor+dt@kernel.org, "Oliver Upton" , "Marc Zyngier" In-Reply-To: <20261015142552.4128028-2-ryan.roberts@arm.com> References: <20261015142552.4128028-1-ryan.roberts@arm.com> <20261015142552.4128028-2-ryan.roberts@arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2026 14:35:19 +0000 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: - [Low] macro: multiple evaluation of macro argument _dev -- commit eeea2acb1fe471c02eee65ef8f991f70efeb7b69 Author: Jean-Philippe Brucker misc/arm-cla: Add driver skeleton and documentation This commit introduces the initial driver skeleton and documentation for the Arm Core Local Accelerator (CLA). It adds the required Kconfig, Makefil= e, register definitions, and a common driver header. > diff --git a/drivers/misc/arm-cla/arm-cla.h b/drivers/misc/arm-cla/arm-cl= a.h > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000000000..1e8ffca28bc6e > --- /dev/null > +++ b/drivers/misc/arm-cla/arm-cla.h [ ... ] > +struct cla_dev { > + unsigned int cpu; > + struct device *dev; > +}; > + > +#define cla_dbg(_dev, fmt, ...) \ > + dev_dbg((_dev)->dev, "[%u] " fmt, (_dev)->cpu, ##__VA_ARGS__) > +#define cla_info(_dev, fmt, ...) \ > + dev_info((_dev)->dev, "[%u] " fmt, (_dev)->cpu, ##__VA_ARGS__) > +#define cla_err(_dev, fmt, ...) \ > + dev_err((_dev)->dev, "[%u] " fmt, (_dev)->cpu, ##__VA_ARGS__) [Severity: Low] The _dev macro parameter is evaluated twice here. Could this lead to unintended duplicate execution if a caller passes an expression with side-effects, such as get_device(dev++)? Would it be safer to rewrite these as static inline functions, or use a statement expression with a local variable to evaluate _dev only once? > + > +#endif /* _ARM_CLA_H_ */ --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20261015142552.4128= 028-1-ryan.roberts@arm.com?part=3D1