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 3A7B030BF62; Tue, 6 Jan 2026 09:20:51 +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=1767691254; cv=none; b=DjbaJszbLV7tvTQeK2eVQOB4dHpDEM20MIYDUrvFoVaKR/jh1OBzH0JNwBbvZVDtjBa5T1mfzGshO2LvsJ8h5WaWjP+Nf3hEptVF8vPW5+/+UlDy9hlzmjBFGLWNiKxwo5VfTCHXBF628jf/gaX1jw2nFf7sH6Ro1tpZ6aD6SMo= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1767691254; c=relaxed/simple; bh=oOeYTrnQxGPulauC7TDQ/8FzcIcuR5115oWjDelvo6U=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=MtKDiGPVcXIKk0/RdbGxHew85s6+zQJUqC15vVIPRl0Nc2Ms+eGOK3bP0wjFDmSNnI73xI/C5T2cJBQEOWjOAHU6XsdZNrinYY431fLPa3PUxtmkL/KNeEGvdTQR2Vj7bNiiF8EGdFeIj+k490r8IUXvLaF1FRF+I9GDjJOpMrs= 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=jyk05fZ/; 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="jyk05fZ/" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1767691252; x=1799227252; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=oOeYTrnQxGPulauC7TDQ/8FzcIcuR5115oWjDelvo6U=; b=jyk05fZ/5WG3lUylV0/fWgwl361vWCDhQTbK5l2zWPI3yaVQuMFDbX9O h+P+9t8AXf80UFIw9xKOU91+jLmBhNpBqTZUouqWUfKBXZJ6VPncUV7Sb KS/Kf2SNuzXGsLyuYMk4o9pOO2rZRjGLOjetFPR6DvZMPNSqTNNs9aQb1 2cDSEyFvOmPEzPCLIzaMSGQ8CBV6N7nymaEpRL63NaP6ynbXfTlB2KJ6/ JG/01heXVUo5nnBU8KOSAJymrdcg2+aKxQ6CtkUt79g1dxsBSIeB9KgJT 8sRdwdzHDyRIi3261olSV8zr91jnj4Xg4RGwlWGVyetDgyNyegyBzXf45 g==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: HmVSAsXJRz6Xncvy15PgrQ== X-CSE-MsgGUID: FOqni6JFR8uWMELz9HbeGw== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6800,10657,11662"; a="79360758" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.21,204,1763452800"; d="scan'208";a="79360758" Received: from fmviesa001.fm.intel.com ([10.60.135.141]) by orvoesa103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 06 Jan 2026 01:20:52 -0800 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: xn1SB4kURNeTd4yE4V4HnA== X-CSE-MsgGUID: 9vbT8GC2Tfmylghk1fElgg== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.21,204,1763452800"; d="scan'208";a="233753110" Received: from black.igk.intel.com ([10.91.253.5]) by fmviesa001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 06 Jan 2026 01:20:50 -0800 Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2026 10:20:47 +0100 From: Raag Jadav To: Andy Shevchenko 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: On Mon, Jan 05, 2026 at 08:07:07PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > 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. Fair, but converting to standard macro is noteworthy IMHO. I'll leave the final call to you all. Raag > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250825163545.39303-3-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com