Re: [PATCH] Use BIT macro instead of (1 << HSDMA_GLO_BT_SHIFT)

[Krish Jain <krishjain02939@gmail.com>]

Hi. How do I fix this issue, Greg? Thanks.


Best Regards

On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 7:30 AM Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 02, 2021 at 01:52:15PM +0200, Krish Jain wrote:
> > This patch replaces (1 << HSDMA_GLO_BT_SHIFT) with the BIT(x) macro, as suggested by checkpatch.pl, for the file drivers/staging/mt7621-dma/hsdma-mt7621.c .
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Krish Jain <krishjain02939@gmail.com>
> >
> > ---
> >  drivers/staging/mt7621-dma/hsdma-mt7621.c | 5 ++---
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/mt7621-dma/hsdma-mt7621.c b/drivers/staging/mt7621-dma/hsdma-mt7621.c
> > index 89b72a802800..a99cec876110 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/mt7621-dma/hsdma-mt7621.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/mt7621-dma/hsdma-mt7621.c
> > @@ -72,7 +72,7 @@
> >  #define HSDMA_GLO_TX_DMA             BIT(0)
> >
> >  #define HSDMA_BT_SIZE_16BYTES                (0 << HSDMA_GLO_BT_SHIFT)
> > -#define HSDMA_BT_SIZE_32BYTES                (1 << HSDMA_GLO_BT_SHIFT)
> > +#define HSDMA_BT_SIZE_32BYTES                BIT(HSDMA_GLO_BT_SHIFT)
> >  #define HSDMA_BT_SIZE_64BYTES                (2 << HSDMA_GLO_BT_SHIFT)
> >  #define HSDMA_BT_SIZE_128BYTES               (3 << HSDMA_GLO_BT_SHIFT)
> >
> > @@ -164,8 +164,7 @@ struct mtk_hsdam_engine {
> >
> >  static inline struct mtk_hsdam_engine *mtk_hsdma_chan_get_dev(struct mtk_hsdma_chan *chan)
> >  {
> > -     return container_of(chan->vchan.chan.device, struct mtk_hsdam_engine,
> > -                     ddev);
> > +     return container_of(chan->vchan.chan.device, struct mtk_hsdam_engine, ddev);
> >  }
> >
> >  static inline struct mtk_hsdma_chan *to_mtk_hsdma_chan(struct dma_chan *c)
> > --
> > 2.25.1
> >
> >
>
> Hi,
>
> This is the friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman.  You have sent him
> a patch that has triggered this response.  He used to manually respond
> to these common problems, but in order to save his sanity (he kept
> writing the same thing over and over, yet to different people), I was
> created.  Hopefully you will not take offence and will fix the problem
> in your patch and resubmit it so that it can be accepted into the Linux
> kernel tree.
>
> You are receiving this message because of the following common error(s)
> as indicated below:
>
> - Your patch did many different things all at once, making it difficult
>   to review.  All Linux kernel patches need to only do one thing at a
>   time.  If you need to do multiple things (such as clean up all coding
>   style issues in a file/driver), do it in a sequence of patches, each
>   one doing only one thing.  This will make it easier to review the
>   patches to ensure that they are correct, and to help alleviate any
>   merge issues that larger patches can cause.
>
> - You did not write a descriptive Subject: for the patch, allowing Greg,
>   and everyone else, to know what this patch is all about.  Please read
>   the section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the kernel file,
>   Documentation/SubmittingPatches for what a proper Subject: line should
>   look like.
>
> If you wish to discuss this problem further, or you have questions about
> how to resolve this issue, please feel free to respond to this email and
> Greg will reply once he has dug out from the pending patches received
> from other developers.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h's patch email bot