Re: [PATCH] staging: sm750fb: fix checkpatch warning architecture specific defines should be avoided

[Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 01:06:37AM +0530, Riyan Dhiman wrote:
> Abstract out x86-specific code in ddk750_init_hw() to improve
> portability and adhere to kernel coding standards. Replaces
> architecture-specific defines with CONFIG_X86 checks.
> 
> Fixes checkpatch warning:
> - CHECK: architecture specific defines should be avoided.
> 
> Changes made:
> - Create a new function sm750le_set_graphic_mode to encapsulate architecture
> specifc behaviour.
> - Using CONFIG_X86 instead of i386 and x86.
> - Added placeholder for non-x86 architectures in sm750le_set_graphic_mode
> function.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Riyan Dhiman <riyandhiman14@gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/sm750fb/ddk750_chip.c | 17 ++++++++++++-----
>  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/sm750fb/ddk750_chip.c b/drivers/staging/sm750fb/ddk750_chip.c
> index 02860d3ec365..23196070bceb 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/sm750fb/ddk750_chip.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/sm750fb/ddk750_chip.c
> @@ -210,6 +210,17 @@ unsigned int ddk750_get_vm_size(void)
>  	return data;
>  }
>  
> +static void sm750le_set_graphic_mode(void)
> +{
> +#ifdef CONFIG_X86
> +	outb_p(0x88, 0x3d4);
> +	outb_p(0x06, 0x3d5);
> +#else
> +	/* Implement an alternative method for non-x86 architectures */
> +	/* This might involve memory-mapped I/O or other chip-specific methods */
> +#endif
> +}
> +
>  int ddk750_init_hw(struct initchip_param *p_init_param)
>  {
>  	unsigned int reg;
> @@ -229,11 +240,7 @@ int ddk750_init_hw(struct initchip_param *p_init_param)
>  		reg |= (VGA_CONFIGURATION_PLL | VGA_CONFIGURATION_MODE);
>  		poke32(VGA_CONFIGURATION, reg);
>  	} else {
> -#if defined(__i386__) || defined(__x86_64__)
> -		/* set graphic mode via IO method */
> -		outb_p(0x88, 0x3d4);
> -		outb_p(0x06, 0x3d5);
> -#endif
> +		sm750le_set_graphic_mode();

This really doesn't change much, right?  I think the existing code is
fine, it's ok to ignore checkpatch here.

thanks,

greg k-h