From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [198.175.65.11]) (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 9C9AE3191C6; Tue, 9 Sep 2025 13:56:21 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.11 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1757426183; cv=none; b=M77UI5bI4OyV1vD/Ekv2r50XZYPWPnSNZunppdml8k6RaDQbTbtJeVK1jgm6uIOiuSMSI1+S5aTKvbxooKxc5KVsrbBtB8ZTvuesLQLP+YMWMU4u8aRjqN5GbHvAEsh1Hh66nzmNVtW30AmJ+eLE1/2batEyTQleFxhPaL+6T9s= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1757426183; c=relaxed/simple; bh=g/QqtRMuBql/lAp+Wpk1UAHBNS5otc0roGKqOnIPLHk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=gbG3GONboePXeUNfuJzPDAtq5tvIuPtN6e4Hhp9qL70oZrahw/2SF4LaWH4DuO95Fd+2xVBiw7o5UCN4bjnchS9YZ3I+xiH/1nFiVW2xoXOTyxHVuzCjwaPNePESrcj5KItF7VCoYVA0VAlCfepcJwPtdD7GBSyjjADtiV4LZZ4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=DHHIg75+; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.11 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="DHHIg75+" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1757426182; x=1788962182; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to; bh=g/QqtRMuBql/lAp+Wpk1UAHBNS5otc0roGKqOnIPLHk=; b=DHHIg75+8t6vn6O4iVHbo6OemQ/4/l7V/P43PZOBdM/TkQlLY/EgmELO 0LXGtkLkmAsjwNiecXLJtLrsHxEzNBldE1T8MDnmBIfI2+IXnoQ7C0WM6 OiDOGbukASn7vo9JAHWUyfqCCMaXi6IS724OJqsGeS4fId7Xvhv27lnnH xWx9on8DbdB3cvWg4Yuk42v96Uq7+INjzxkmoUMcCAoWgV6g+bWp8geDu HbvuMPD/6kHegnNsyLp/rdXl5ySH3HHUnbXRk9jVoc5XK+Ig8vUuiVEH6 117u4vTZtwp58SnzTpFJozvZqf3fxNkAJG+6ai3FAN3eEVijZKp6iyvlR A==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: bjBJfVGaSEWdsNNKFF/QvA== X-CSE-MsgGUID: dRafILH5TIyKjw/7IUsbBg== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6800,10657,11548"; a="69964139" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.18,251,1751266800"; d="scan'208";a="69964139" Received: from orviesa007.jf.intel.com ([10.64.159.147]) by orvoesa103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 09 Sep 2025 06:56:21 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: ks5yNBpNSuKS3BFnVbhH5w== X-CSE-MsgGUID: P7SuEn8mRlSdRZ+kBu7loA== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.18,251,1751266800"; d="scan'208";a="172963735" Received: from smile.fi.intel.com ([10.237.72.51]) by orviesa007.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 09 Sep 2025 06:56:16 -0700 Received: from andy by smile.fi.intel.com with local (Exim 4.98.2) (envelope-from ) id 1uvypQ-00000001UyO-2aQ3; Tue, 09 Sep 2025 16:56:12 +0300 Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2025 16:56:12 +0300 From: Andy Shevchenko To: Bartosz Golaszewski Cc: Linus Walleij , Keguang Zhang , Alban Bedel , Doug Berger , Florian Fainelli , Broadcom internal kernel review list , Matthias Brugger , AngeloGioacchino Del Regno , Paul Walmsley , Samuel Holland , Yixun Lan , Andy Shevchenko , linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, spacemit@lists.linux.dev, Bartosz Golaszewski Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/15] gpio: sodaville: use new generic GPIO chip API Message-ID: References: <20250909-gpio-mmio-gpio-conv-part4-v1-0-9f723dc3524a@linaro.org> <20250909-gpio-mmio-gpio-conv-part4-v1-13-9f723dc3524a@linaro.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - c/o Alberga Business Park, 6 krs, Bertel Jungin Aukio 5, 02600 Espoo On Tue, Sep 09, 2025 at 04:47:09PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Tue, Sep 09, 2025 at 04:45:31PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 09, 2025 at 08:24:23AM -0500, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > > On Tue, 9 Sep 2025 15:13:04 +0200, Andy Shevchenko > > > said: > > > > On Tue, Sep 09, 2025 at 01:35:04PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Sep 9, 2025 at 1:31 PM Andy Shevchenko > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > On Tue, Sep 09, 2025 at 11:15:40AM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: ... > > > >> > > + config = (typeof(config)){ > > > >> > > > > >> > This looks unusual. Why can't properly formed compound literal be used as in > > > >> > many other places in the kernel? > > > >> > > > >> It is correct C > > > > > > > > If it compiles, it doesn't mean it's correct C, it might be non-standard. > > > > Have you checked with the standard (note, I read that part in the past, > > > > but I may forgot the details, so I don't know the answer to this)? > > > > > > It's a GNU extension alright > > > > clang, I suppose, also okay with this? > > > > > but it's supported in the kernel as it evaluates > > > to a simple cast. > > > > There is no cast. And that's make a big difference to what the code tries to do. > > > > > >> and checkpatch doesn't raise any warnings. > > > > > > > > checkpatch is far from being useful in the questions like this. > > > > It false positively complains for for_each*() macros all over > > > > the kernel, for example. > > > > > > > >> It's the > > > >> same kind of argument as between kmalloc(sizeof(struct foo)) vs > > > >> kmalloc(sizeof(f)). > > > > > > > > Maybe, but it introduces a new style while all other cases use the other, > > > > _established_ style. So we have a precedent and the form the code is written > > > > in is against the de facto usage of the compound literals. > > > > > > It may not be *very* common but it's hardly new style: > > > > I think your statement is incorrect see below why. > > > > > $ git grep -P "\(typeof\(.*\)\) ?\{" | wc > > > 108 529 7315 > > > > Not correct. The correct output will be closer to > > > > $ git grep -l -P "\(typeof\(.*\)\) ?\{" | wc -l > > 15 > > > > And if you looked at the output carefully, you see the bug in the RE you used. > > > > So, even closer will be this one: > > > > $ git grep -l -P "=[[:space:]]+\(typeof\(.*\)\) ?\{" | wc -l > > 7 > > > > 2 out of which are related to libeth, effectively makes this 6. And for of fullness the picture: $ git grep -l -P "=[[:space:]]+\(struct [^[:space:]]*\) ?\{" | wc -l 501 So, it's 1:100 ratio. > TBH, I think those 6 all made the same mistake, i.e. thinking of the compound > literal as a cast. Which is not! > > > No, this is completely non-standard and unusual thing in the kernel. > > > > > >> I guess it's personal taste but I like this version better. > > > > > > > > In kernel we also try to be consistent. This add inconsistency. Am I wrong? > > > > > > > >> > > + .dev = &pdev->dev, > > > >> > > + .sz = 4, > > > >> > > + .dat = sd->gpio_pub_base + GPINR, > > > >> > > + .set = sd->gpio_pub_base + GPOUTR, > > > >> > > + .dirout = sd->gpio_pub_base + GPOER, > > > >> > > + }; -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko