From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [198.175.65.9]) (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 3E4AF3246E4; Mon, 5 Jan 2026 18:07:11 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.9 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1767636435; cv=none; b=kAnpQYdz99asBymJZqeclFBdKTHDyyv9yvFg/NlvDMn8HV5zaunxt6bv3zsvKZl0m0DEs/LlKQ7KTxjvdAl23dt+cb81FHaGRqXyj+AzezdFvP6LwdGiuj8ywIBmZ4HoXIyRhvMbvfP6pl/iLVRH67IIKrvtKt4VQ+1xqQ5cnDc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1767636435; c=relaxed/simple; bh=2Yd0U4QLroIAEUZF76pg3bSoONnirZrVb/TJ2EsEa04=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=Tunw0LFOZTinVNyC3RSMG9frFmTWkvju+bpl/WS9oi2ULOUQVPE2RW7+o/g49S9iMB8I/NGuC8c0RyoHjBPowzN18HL+SKJORvj0GFVPrH5Qzszhpz9YuuBVD6KexvC9wejp15RScXYiu+mSgTcNokEBiDLZ0m8Mdm+ExMVfo1k= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=hLRK8SXB; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.9 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="hLRK8SXB" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1767636434; x=1799172434; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=2Yd0U4QLroIAEUZF76pg3bSoONnirZrVb/TJ2EsEa04=; b=hLRK8SXB7IsdjGFgXXcH9THhbjbySzT0k2gc3h8nPxykAAkk/e1o2ZUI tpVhxPzFHeOkVx5sqxrcP5pApuv0tTWBLXWsrOaD4gHeO99j35bgM4RXB mNE9bwQwzJjLxOfmbFnR7YKoirpIhmrmMXCqmPRlwLkM3qhS/vJ5azXeE 0rLPa3Spmq7E77+h83FksoMd1TArFWCrjw48c32lJCRkrvw91ZJ0husav RzLMhh4wrHgbZLZUfokzvTo08n0vmPjBN36oIFW5SHJ824Ur8h9OwwpI4 Vt96AfNaNtKuG+tZsNms1apjtIXhXlUk160twRI5gNC8noBw33lMTy2Hm Q==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: 03mHBy+zRUO28Gnrrf0k0w== X-CSE-MsgGUID: 4wh7w8j8SEyqFLSGlbcuXQ== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6800,10657,11662"; a="91657351" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.21,204,1763452800"; d="scan'208";a="91657351" Received: from orviesa004.jf.intel.com ([10.64.159.144]) by orvoesa101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 05 Jan 2026 10:07:12 -0800 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: LwJsBZqbQv6o0BFQ9MpsVQ== X-CSE-MsgGUID: iXkIrSOLQGGcJEwAm+a6wQ== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.21,204,1763452800"; d="scan'208";a="207003793" Received: from klitkey1-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.245.244.215]) by orviesa004-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 05 Jan 2026 10:07:10 -0800 Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2026 20:07:07 +0200 From: Andy Shevchenko To: Raag Jadav Cc: ukleinek@kernel.org, heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com, linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] pwm: dwc: Use size macro Message-ID: References: <20260105091737.17280-1-raag.jadav@intel.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - c/o Alberga Business Park, 6 krs, Bertel Jungin Aukio 5, 02600 Espoo On Mon, Jan 05, 2026 at 05:51:34PM +0100, Raag Jadav wrote: > On Mon, Jan 05, 2026 at 06:41:48PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 05, 2026 at 02:47:37PM +0530, Raag Jadav wrote: > > > Use SZ_4K from size.h instead of hardcoding constant. > > > > Acked-by: Andy Shevchenko > > Thank you. > > > OTOH, not sure if it's just an unneeded churn. What was the motivation to > > create this patch? > Your hard work[1] continues to motivate me :) Ha-ha, but that one has a principal difference, i.e. there was _a custom macro_ *already*, which was replaced with a generic one. From the code perspective it's not a churn as it kills the unneeded custom macro. Here the situation is different, i.e. the explicit number 0x1000 is changed to SZ_4K. Just a line to change, the added header inclusion and no other changes, so as a standalone one it sounds to me like a churn. > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250825163545.39303-3-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko