From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C399AD2A53D for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2024 19:00:32 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender:List-Subscribe:List-Help :List-Post:List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID: Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=jJE57QERgDknKGW7NPSs5mCwqH+t/ymPS7PbFKtY+i4=; b=OY2lz54PA/70b74kAozMd+CqFF qu743GnuSdtKkkY70mKzfQHLgmbGCfKI5GTPVXj6LUB3Lw7UmBtKL023Rc5gxiyxSYx3vuoqJ/dp7 TIR6pAKaua9D+4ldvvr2xhTc5fkonE6b687JgCskqz0OjNWwPZ86pg3H/eTsN0x+mRmPaK4YnZH02 VOM3u7xFCZjJix6Fephh4Scrg3v+aE5edF21bNzWpr9KPnsCHl4EUDgO6H4ZfyBFQUOHSykcQeMbn H6iGWru4WDGlIZH+rp+B7gvk5Qkwh3AtlM3FUXqT4gXuLWZQ+HystYyWi+w60DwYxr8wzLuEthtxR BoGyhAFQ==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.98 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1t19G3-0000000CkpZ-2HgD; Wed, 16 Oct 2024 19:00:31 +0000 Received: from dfw.source.kernel.org ([2604:1380:4641:c500::1]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.98 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1t19Du-0000000CkMn-3EAF; Wed, 16 Oct 2024 18:58:19 +0000 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (transwarp.subspace.kernel.org [100.75.92.58]) by dfw.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 936505C5627; Wed, 16 Oct 2024 18:58:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 84A48C4CEC5; Wed, 16 Oct 2024 18:58:14 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1729105097; bh=DI3vXOs2FhFrx3JN5uzYaOYxEOMRWbXlYRHowN6BJ1U=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=FaLFxaRBwMouJqTGwQCi8Yd5NnSQSDeodJdyqNVUIn0NJp/d46McB2rselzO9Laze m99l/Icwlm2YZho4RVZrZYGmwfmM38H6kNCGE6CfTWP3iCqVx9AiByZ4iBB5ykm/nU wP9dkP0rAieddfzfLpRSY/kcaf+dJvnMbP2T8ALSlFrjl3IpuGzQ9QWxY9EWIAhRhl 9B/vlic1SnNh+Flbvyq0gwKBNb00AT2+zPRhhJ2okrs4uC2OHL0Dtg95UC/UOL6z7O UdGXY8i6IjOaGQJoiLjcYUhkvgy4DagbBTMgXkEZXzoYkEkHgcqDlJJAbkTqAVbEqr tJ4X+A0B4RaaQ== Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2024 19:58:12 +0100 From: Simon Horman To: SkyLake Huang =?utf-8?B?KOm7g+WVn+a+pCk=?= Cc: "andrew@lunn.ch" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org" , "linux@armlinux.org.uk" , "kuba@kernel.org" , "pabeni@redhat.com" , "edumazet@google.com" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "dqfext@gmail.com" , "matthias.bgg@gmail.com" , Steven Liu =?utf-8?B?KOWKieS6uuixqik=?= , "davem@davemloft.net" , "hkallweit1@gmail.com" , AngeloGioacchino Del Regno , "daniel@makrotopia.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/1] net: phy: Refactor mediatek-ge-soc.c for clarity and correctness Message-ID: <20241016185812.GN2162@kernel.org> References: <20241014040521.24949-1-SkyLake.Huang@mediatek.com> <20241014081823.GL77519@kernel.org> <20241016143431.GJ2162@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20241016_115818_871923_7595F6E4 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 14.71 ) X-BeenThere: linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "Linux-mediatek" Errors-To: linux-mediatek-bounces+linux-mediatek=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 04:25:14PM +0000, SkyLake Huang (黃啟澤) wrote: > > I do think that would be best. > > But if you strongly think otherwise I can try to review it as-is. > > Hi Simon, > If this does cause trouble for reviewing, I can split it into a few > patches: > Patch 1: Fix spelling errors + reverse Xmas tree + remove unnecessary > parens > Patch 2: Shrink mtk-ge-soc.c line wrapping to 80 characters. > Patch 3: Propagate error code correctly in cal_cycle() + FIELD_GET() > change > Patch 4: Fix multi functions with FIELD_PREP(). > > Is this okay for you? Do I need to split them into more patches? Yes, I think that is a good way to split things up.