Re: [PATCH net-next 5/5] net: stmmac: stm32: Use syscon_regmap_lookup_by_phandle_args

[Andrew Lunn]

On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 04:05:13PM +0800, Yanteng Si wrote:
> 在 2025/1/12 21:32, Krzysztof Kozlowski 写道:
> > Use syscon_regmap_lookup_by_phandle_args() which is a wrapper over
> > syscon_regmap_lookup_by_phandle() combined with getting the syscon
> > argument.  Except simpler code this annotates within one line that given
> > phandle has arguments, so grepping for code would be easier.
> > 
> > There is also no real benefit in printing errors on missing syscon
> > argument, because this is done just too late: runtime check on
> > static/build-time data.  Dtschema and Devicetree bindings offer the
> > static/build-time check for this already.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >   drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac-stm32.c | 9 ++-------
> >   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac-stm32.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac-stm32.c
> > index 1e8bac665cc9bc95c3aa96e87a8e95d9c63ba8e1..1fcb74e9e3ffacdc7581b267febb55d015a83aed 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac-stm32.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac-stm32.c
> > @@ -419,16 +419,11 @@ static int stm32_dwmac_parse_data(struct stm32_dwmac *dwmac,
> >   	}
> >   	/* Get mode register */
> > -	dwmac->regmap = syscon_regmap_lookup_by_phandle(np, "st,syscon");
> > +	dwmac->regmap = syscon_regmap_lookup_by_phandle_args(np, "st,syscon",
> > +							     1, &dwmac->mode_reg);
> The network subsystem still requires that the length of
> each line of code should not exceed 80 characters.
> So, let's silence the warning:
> 
> WARNING: line length of 83 exceeds 80 columns
> #33: FILE: drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac-imx.c:307:
> +							     &dwmac->intf_reg_off);

checkpatch should be considered a guide, not a strict conformance
tool. You often need to look at its output and consider does what it
suggest really make the code better? In this case, i would disagree
with checkpatch and allow this code.

If the code had all been on one long line, then i would suggest to
wrap it. But as it is, it keeps with the spirit of 80 characters, even
if it is technically not.

	Andrew