From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751784Ab3KRWS5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Nov 2013 17:18:57 -0500 Received: from smtprelay0079.hostedemail.com ([216.40.44.79]:40955 "EHLO smtprelay.hostedemail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751281Ab3KRWSx (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Nov 2013 17:18:53 -0500 X-Session-Marker: 6A6F6540706572636865732E636F6D X-Spam-Summary: 50,0,0,,d41d8cd98f00b204,joe@perches.com,:::::::::::::::::::::::::::,RULES_HIT:41:355:379:541:599:967:973:988:989:1260:1261:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1359:1373:1437:1515:1516:1518:1534:1540:1593:1594:1711:1730:1747:1777:1792:2393:2525:2553:2560:2563:2682:2685:2693:2828:2859:2933:2937:2939:2942:2945:2947:2951:2 X-HE-Tag: bears59_12f4afdb15e1a X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 2426 Message-ID: <1384813128.17783.3.camel@joe-AO722> Subject: Re: [PATCHv7] dmaengine: Add support for BCM2835 From: Joe Perches To: Russell King - ARM Linux Cc: Andy Shevchenko , Florian Meier , Stephen Warren , "Koul, Vinod" , "Williams, Dan J" , devicetree , "alsa-devel@alsa-project.org" , Liam Girdwood , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Mark Brown , linux-rpi-kernel , dmaengine , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 14:18:48 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20131118145400.GE16735@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <5288E327.8050809@koalo.de> <1384768816.14845.186.camel@smile> <528A051A.7000703@koalo.de> <1384785017.14845.214.camel@smile> <20131118145400.GE16735@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.8.4-0ubuntu1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2013-11-18 at 14:54 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 04:30:17PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Mon, 2013-11-18 at 13:16 +0100, Florian Meier wrote: > > > >> + uint32_t chans_available; > > > > > > > > Why uint32_t? > > > > > > Because it is a bit mask of fixed length that directly comes from the > > > firmware. > > > > Like one already told you in your i2s patch, please, change that to > > corresponding u* value, namely u32. > > There's no problem with uint32_t vs u32 - either will do. u32 is the > pre-stdint.h Linux definition of a 32-bit unsigned integer. There's > no reason why uint32_t isn't perfectly acceptable. It's a matter of > author taste which gets used. (Except where modifications are to an > existing chunk of code using one or the other - where consistency then > matters more.) https://lkml.org/lkml/2006/5/2/258