From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EDE8C433E1 for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 11:33:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08137204EC for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 11:33:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726385AbgHQLdf (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Aug 2020 07:33:35 -0400 Received: from mga18.intel.com ([134.134.136.126]:18156 "EHLO mga18.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726286AbgHQLdd (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Aug 2020 07:33:33 -0400 IronPort-SDR: tCDpSmhlhFFHln3WGcFDJcUn0Pdllr634wEG8elrNyOri7067lPvxi/DBkqF/TVQXysxZr+Z15 2RMqs/QZiqUA== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6000,8403,9715"; a="142309179" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.76,322,1592895600"; d="scan'208";a="142309179" X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga008.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.65]) by orsmga106.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 17 Aug 2020 04:33:25 -0700 IronPort-SDR: J9JviNO3TlgFAOlVhFfwWBu1UbJyoYS1eLIKsBZkxtHA6OwsTjL5ULOpoNDNwgGcP/tlriRC0y x4enSs1i0Kgw== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.76,322,1592895600"; d="scan'208";a="326382987" Received: from smile.fi.intel.com (HELO smile) ([10.237.68.40]) by orsmga008.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 17 Aug 2020 04:33:23 -0700 Received: from andy by smile with local (Exim 4.94) (envelope-from ) id 1k7dOE-009IqM-31; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 14:33:22 +0300 Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 14:33:22 +0300 From: Andy Shevchenko To: Sakari Ailus , Jonathan Corbet Cc: joe@perches.com, Bingbu Cao , Yong Zhi , Bingbu Cao , Tian Shu Qiu , linux-media@vger.kernel.org, Mauro Carvalho Chehab Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 6/7] media: ipu3-cio2: Use readl_poll_timeout() helper Message-ID: <20200817113322.GI1891694@smile.fi.intel.com> References: <20200814163017.35001-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> <20200814163017.35001-6-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> <6b739304-7d12-016f-f42a-089c8fe7efac@linux.intel.com> <20200817094436.GF1891694@smile.fi.intel.com> <20200817111316.GH24582@paasikivi.fi.intel.com> <20200817112006.GH1891694@smile.fi.intel.com> <20200817112746.GI24582@paasikivi.fi.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200817112746.GI24582@paasikivi.fi.intel.com> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo Sender: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-media@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 02:27:47PM +0300, Sakari Ailus wrote: > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 02:20:06PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 02:13:16PM +0300, Sakari Ailus wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 12:44:36PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 05:27:33PM +0800, Bingbu Cao wrote: > > > > > On 8/15/20 12:30 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > > > We may use special helper macro to poll IO till condition or timeout occurs. > > > > > > > > > > + ret = readl_poll_timeout(dma, value, value & CIO2_CDMAC0_DMA_HALTED, 4000, 2000000); > > > > > > > > > > This line is too long, need a break, others look good for me. > > > > > > > > checkpatch doesn't complain, but if you insist, I'll split it in v2. > > > > > > The coding style hasn't changed, it's just the checkpatch.pl warning that > > > has. > > > > Joe, it seems we have inconsistency now between checkpatch and coding style. > > Shouldn't we revert 100 limit warning to 80? > > There are sometimes genuine reasons for having longer lines than 80, and > depending on the code, that happens more often in some places than > elsewhere. This tended to generate lots of checkpatch.pl warnings in the > past. > > While I didn't see the patch removing the 80 chars per line limit until it > made the news, I think it was a quite reasonable compromise. But doesn't it make harder life for reviewers like you? You have to keep in mind all these inconsistencies and rule either way. That said, we either would fix the doc, or revert the checkpatch change. Jonathan, what is your opinion? -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko