From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lina Iyer Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] drivers: irqchip: pdc: Add PDC interrupt controller for QCOM SoCs Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 20:31:11 +0000 Message-ID: <20180215203111.GD23714@codeaurora.org> References: <20180209165735.19151-1-ilina@codeaurora.org> <20180209165735.19151-2-ilina@codeaurora.org> <20180215202141.GC23714@codeaurora.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: jason@lakedaemon.net, marc.zyngier@arm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, rnayak@codeaurora.org, asathyak@codeaurora.org List-Id: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Feb 15 2018 at 20:24 +0000, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >On Thu, 15 Feb 2018, Lina Iyer wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 12 2018 at 13:40 +0000, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >> > On Fri, 9 Feb 2018, Lina Iyer wrote: >> > > +enum pdc_irq_config_bits { >> > > + PDC_POLARITY_LOW = 0, >> > > + PDC_FALLING_EDGE = 2, >> > > + PDC_POLARITY_HIGH = 4, >> > > + PDC_RISING_EDGE = 6, >> > > + PDC_DUAL_EDGE = 7, >> > >> > My previous comment about using binary constants still stands. Please >> > either address review comments or reply at least. Ignoring reviews is not >> > an option. >> > >> > Aside of that I really have to ask about the naming of these constants. Are >> > these names hardware register nomenclature? If yes, they are disgusting. If >> > no, they are still disgusting, but should be changed to sensible ones, >> > which just match the IRQ_TYPE naming convention. >> > >> > PDC_LEVEL_LOW = 000b, >> > PDC_EDGE_FALLING = 010b, >> > .... >> > >> > >> Checkpatch doesn't like binary constants. I guess I will need to keep >> the enum definitions in hex or decimal. I will remove the binary from >> the comments though. > >Well checkpatch is not always right. > >> >> commit 95e2c6023b0e4c8499fb521697f79215f69135fe >> Author: Joe Perches >> Date: Wed Jul 3 15:05:20 2013 -0700 >> >> checkpatch: warn when using gcc's binary constant ("0b") extension >> >> The gcc extension for binary constants that start with 0b is only >> supported with gcc version 4.3 or higher. > >Can anything of this be compiled with gcc < 4.3? > I don't see a reason why this would be compiled with a older GCC. I am okay with ignoring the checkpatch errors. I was just not sure if I should. Thanks, Lina