Re: [PATCH v2] i2c-pasemi: PASemi I2C controller IRQ enablement

From: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
To: Sven Peter <sven@svenpeter.dev>,
	Arminder Singh <arminders208@outlook.com>,
	Wolfram Sang <wsa@kernel.org>
Cc: Alyssa Rosenzweig <alyssa@rosenzweig.io>,
	Darren Stevens <darren@stevens-zone.net>,
	Hector Martin <marcan@marcan.st>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
	asahi@lists.linux.dev,
	Christian Zigotzky <chzigotzky@xenosoft.de>,
	linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] i2c-pasemi: PASemi I2C controller IRQ enablement
Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2022 12:27:36 +1100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87edvoped3.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5e89999e-5c9d-428c-a6c6-b454fb47aaa3@app.fastmail.com>

"Sven Peter" <sven@svenpeter.dev> writes:
> On Sun, Oct 2, 2022, at 16:07, Arminder Singh wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>>  #define REG_MTXFIFO	0x00
>>>  #define REG_MRXFIFO	0x04
>>>  #define REG_SMSTA	0x14
>>> +#define REG_IMASK   0x18
>>
>>> This doesn't seem to be aligned correctly, this file seems to use a tab
>>> to separate the register name and the offset and you used spaces here.
>>
>>> @@ -15,7 +16,11 @@ struct pasemi_smbus {
>>>  	struct i2c_adapter	 adapter;
>>>  	void __iomem		*ioaddr;
>>>  	unsigned int		 clk_div;
>>> -	int			 hw_rev;
>>> +	int			         hw_rev;
>>> +	int                  use_irq;
>>> +	struct completion    irq_completion;
>>
>>> This doesn't seem to be aligned correctly and the hw_rev line
>>> doesn't have to be changed.
>>
>> I'm sorry for the alignment issues in the patch, I genuinely didn't notice
>> them as from the perspective of my primary editor (Visual Studio Code)
>> the entries were aligned. I just saw them when opening the files in
>> nano.
>
> No worries, it's just a small nit and quickly fixed after all! :)
>
>>
>> Does fixing the alignment issues and the commit description justify a v3
>> of the patch or should the minor fixes go out as a "resend"? Just not sure
>> in this particular case as the fixes seem to be very minor ones.
>
> I'd send a v3. I've only used resend when e.g. my previous mail provider
> messed up and silently converted all my outgoing mails to HTML.

If you've modified the patches then it's not a "resend":

  https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html#don-t-get-discouraged-or-impatient

So yeah send a v3 in this case.

cheers