Re: [PATCH v9 4/4] clk: qcom: add clock controller driver for qca8386/qca8084

[Konrad Dybcio]

On 10/11/23 13:26, Jie Luo wrote:
> On 10/11/2023 6:25 PM, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> > On 23/09/2023 12:21, Luo Jie wrote:
> > > The clock controller driver of qca8386/qca8084 is registered
> > > as the MDIO device, the hardware register is accessed by MDIO bus
> > > that is normally used to access general PHY device, which is
> > > different from the current existed qcom clock controller drivers
> > > using ioremap to access hardware clock registers.
> >
> > "nsscc-qca8k is accessed via an MDIO bus"
> >
> > > MDIO bus is common utilized by both qca8386/qca8084 and other
> >
> > commonly
> >
> > > PHY devices, so the mutex lock mdio_bus->mdio_lock should be
> > > used instead of using the mutex lock of remap.
> > >
> > > To access the hardware clock registers of qca8386/qca8084, there
> > > is special MDIO frame sequence(three MDIO read/write operations)
> > > need to be sent to device.
> >
> > "there is a special MDIO frame sequence"
> >
> > "which needs to be sent to the device"
>
> I will update the comments, thanks Bryan.
>
> > the following indentation splat from checkpatch
> >
> > CHECK: Alignment should match open parenthesis
> > #2071: FILE: drivers/clk/qcom/nsscc-qca8k.c:2004:
> > +        ret = __mdiobus_write(bus, switch_phy_id, (reg | 
> > QCA8K_REG_DATA_UPPER_16_BITS),
> > +                upper_16_bits(val));
> >
> > CHECK: Alignment should match open parenthesis
> > #2131: FILE: drivers/clk/qcom/nsscc-qca8k.c:2064:
> > +static int qca8k_regmap_update_bits(void *context, unsigned int regaddr,
> > +        unsigned int mask, unsigned int value)
> >
> > total: 0 errors, 1 warnings, 2 checks, 2162 lines checked
> >
> > NOTE: For some of the reported defects, checkpatch may be able to
> >        mechanically convert to the typical style using --fix or 
> > --fix-inplace.
> >
> > 0004-clk-qcom-add-clock-controller-driver-for-qca8386-qca.patch has 
> > style problems, please review.
>
> Thanks Bryan for the review. The code line mentioned by CHECK is more 
> than 100 columns, so i separate the lines.
Please read what checkpatch tells you.

It asks you to change

very_long_func_name(arg1, arg2,
	arg3);

to

very_long_func_name(arg1, arg2,
		    arg3);

(remember tab len is 8 for the linux kernel)

Konrad