| Message ID | 20190721125259.13990-1-hm@bitlabs.co.za |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [1/2] gpio: Replace usage of bare 'unsigned' with 'unsigned int' | expand |
G'day Hennie, patch title should be: gpio: viperboard: Replace usage of bare 'unsigned' with 'unsigned int' On 21/07/2019 20:52, Hennie Muller wrote: > Fixes a couple of warnings by checkpatch and sparse. > > Signed-off-by: Hennie Muller <hm@bitlabs.co.za> > --- > drivers/gpio/gpio-viperboard.c | 20 ++++++++++---------- > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-viperboard.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-viperboard.c > index 9b604f13e302..c301c1d56dd2 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-viperboard.c > +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-viperboard.c > @@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ MODULE_PARM_DESC(gpioa_freq, > /* ----- begin of gipo a chip -------------------------------------------- */ > > static int vprbrd_gpioa_get(struct gpio_chip *chip, > - unsigned offset) > + unsigned int offset) I've encountered these checkpatch warnings as well. However 'struct gpio_chip' callbacks define the function signatures as 'unsigned', not 'unsigned int'. So I've also left them as is, to explicitly match the struct definition. Be interested to know what the official take on this is. > { > int ret, answer, error = 0; > struct vprbrd_gpio *gpio = gpiochip_get_data(chip); > @@ -129,7 +129,7 @@ static int vprbrd_gpioa_get(struct gpio_chip *chip, > } > > static void vprbrd_gpioa_set(struct gpio_chip *chip, > - unsigned offset, int value) > + unsigned int offset, int value) > { > int ret; > struct vprbrd_gpio *gpio = gpiochip_get_data(chip); > @@ -170,7 +170,7 @@ static void vprbrd_gpioa_set(struct gpio_chip *chip, > } > > static int vprbrd_gpioa_direction_input(struct gpio_chip *chip, > - unsigned offset) > + unsigned int offset) > { > int ret; > struct vprbrd_gpio *gpio = gpiochip_get_data(chip); > @@ -207,7 +207,7 @@ static int vprbrd_gpioa_direction_input(struct gpio_chip *chip, > } > > static int vprbrd_gpioa_direction_output(struct gpio_chip *chip, > - unsigned offset, int value) > + unsigned int offset, int value) > { > int ret; > struct vprbrd_gpio *gpio = gpiochip_get_data(chip); > @@ -251,8 +251,8 @@ static int vprbrd_gpioa_direction_output(struct gpio_chip *chip, > > /* ----- begin of gipo b chip -------------------------------------------- */ > > -static int vprbrd_gpiob_setdir(struct vprbrd *vb, unsigned offset, > - unsigned dir) > +static int vprbrd_gpiob_setdir(struct vprbrd *vb, unsigned int offset, > + unsigned int dir) > { > struct vprbrd_gpiob_msg *gbmsg = (struct vprbrd_gpiob_msg *)vb->buf; > int ret; > @@ -273,7 +273,7 @@ static int vprbrd_gpiob_setdir(struct vprbrd *vb, unsigned offset, > } > > static int vprbrd_gpiob_get(struct gpio_chip *chip, > - unsigned offset) > + unsigned int offset) > { > int ret; > u16 val; > @@ -305,7 +305,7 @@ static int vprbrd_gpiob_get(struct gpio_chip *chip, > } > > static void vprbrd_gpiob_set(struct gpio_chip *chip, > - unsigned offset, int value) > + unsigned int offset, int value) > { > int ret; > struct vprbrd_gpio *gpio = gpiochip_get_data(chip); > @@ -338,7 +338,7 @@ static void vprbrd_gpiob_set(struct gpio_chip *chip, > } > > static int vprbrd_gpiob_direction_input(struct gpio_chip *chip, > - unsigned offset) > + unsigned int offset) > { > int ret; > struct vprbrd_gpio *gpio = gpiochip_get_data(chip); > @@ -359,7 +359,7 @@ static int vprbrd_gpiob_direction_input(struct gpio_chip *chip, > } > > static int vprbrd_gpiob_direction_output(struct gpio_chip *chip, > - unsigned offset, int value) > + unsigned int offset, int value) > { > int ret; > struct vprbrd_gpio *gpio = gpiochip_get_data(chip); >
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 10:05:00AM +0800, Phil Reid wrote: > G'day Hennie, > > patch title should be: > gpio: viperboard: Replace usage of bare 'unsigned' with 'unsigned int' Thanks Phil. I'll go read up a bit on amending commit messages for review. > > On 21/07/2019 20:52, Hennie Muller wrote: > > Fixes a couple of warnings by checkpatch and sparse. > > > > Signed-off-by: Hennie Muller <hm@bitlabs.co.za> > > --- > > drivers/gpio/gpio-viperboard.c | 20 ++++++++++---------- > > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-viperboard.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-viperboard.c > > index 9b604f13e302..c301c1d56dd2 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-viperboard.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-viperboard.c > > @@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ MODULE_PARM_DESC(gpioa_freq, > > /* ----- begin of gipo a chip -------------------------------------------- */ > > static int vprbrd_gpioa_get(struct gpio_chip *chip, > > - unsigned offset) > > + unsigned int offset) > > I've encountered these checkpatch warnings as well. > > However 'struct gpio_chip' callbacks define the function signatures > as 'unsigned', not 'unsigned int'. So I've also left them as is, to explicitly > match the struct definition. > > Be interested to know what the official take on this is. In hindsight, I saw most of the other gpio drivers follow the same convention as the viperboard driver. which means a) my changes add no value and just creates inconsistency. or b) there's an opportunity to fix up the rest of the gpio drivers as well? Which I'll be happy to do. I'll be eagerly awaiting feedback. > > > > { > > int ret, answer, error = 0; > > struct vprbrd_gpio *gpio = gpiochip_get_data(chip); > > @@ -129,7 +129,7 @@ static int vprbrd_gpioa_get(struct gpio_chip *chip, > > } > > static void vprbrd_gpioa_set(struct gpio_chip *chip, > > - unsigned offset, int value) > > + unsigned int offset, int value) > > { > > int ret; > > struct vprbrd_gpio *gpio = gpiochip_get_data(chip); > > @@ -170,7 +170,7 @@ static void vprbrd_gpioa_set(struct gpio_chip *chip, > > } > > static int vprbrd_gpioa_direction_input(struct gpio_chip *chip, > > - unsigned offset) > > + unsigned int offset) > > { > > int ret; > > struct vprbrd_gpio *gpio = gpiochip_get_data(chip); > > @@ -207,7 +207,7 @@ static int vprbrd_gpioa_direction_input(struct gpio_chip *chip, > > } > > static int vprbrd_gpioa_direction_output(struct gpio_chip *chip, > > - unsigned offset, int value) > > + unsigned int offset, int value) > > { > > int ret; > > struct vprbrd_gpio *gpio = gpiochip_get_data(chip); > > @@ -251,8 +251,8 @@ static int vprbrd_gpioa_direction_output(struct gpio_chip *chip, > > /* ----- begin of gipo b chip -------------------------------------------- */ > > -static int vprbrd_gpiob_setdir(struct vprbrd *vb, unsigned offset, > > - unsigned dir) > > +static int vprbrd_gpiob_setdir(struct vprbrd *vb, unsigned int offset, > > + unsigned int dir) > > { > > struct vprbrd_gpiob_msg *gbmsg = (struct vprbrd_gpiob_msg *)vb->buf; > > int ret; > > @@ -273,7 +273,7 @@ static int vprbrd_gpiob_setdir(struct vprbrd *vb, unsigned offset, > > } > > static int vprbrd_gpiob_get(struct gpio_chip *chip, > > - unsigned offset) > > + unsigned int offset) > > { > > int ret; > > u16 val; > > @@ -305,7 +305,7 @@ static int vprbrd_gpiob_get(struct gpio_chip *chip, > > } > > static void vprbrd_gpiob_set(struct gpio_chip *chip, > > - unsigned offset, int value) > > + unsigned int offset, int value) > > { > > int ret; > > struct vprbrd_gpio *gpio = gpiochip_get_data(chip); > > @@ -338,7 +338,7 @@ static void vprbrd_gpiob_set(struct gpio_chip *chip, > > } > > static int vprbrd_gpiob_direction_input(struct gpio_chip *chip, > > - unsigned offset) > > + unsigned int offset) > > { > > int ret; > > struct vprbrd_gpio *gpio = gpiochip_get_data(chip); > > @@ -359,7 +359,7 @@ static int vprbrd_gpiob_direction_input(struct gpio_chip *chip, > > } > > static int vprbrd_gpiob_direction_output(struct gpio_chip *chip, > > - unsigned offset, int value) > > + unsigned int offset, int value) > > { > > int ret; > > struct vprbrd_gpio *gpio = gpiochip_get_data(chip); > > > > > -- > Regards > Phil Reid
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 6:52 AM Hennie Muller <hm@bitlabs.co.za> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 10:05:00AM +0800, Phil Reid wrote: > > I've encountered these checkpatch warnings as well. > > > > However 'struct gpio_chip' callbacks define the function signatures > > as 'unsigned', not 'unsigned int'. So I've also left them as is, to explicitly > > match the struct definition. > > > > Be interested to know what the official take on this is. > In hindsight, I saw most of the other gpio drivers follow the same > convention as the viperboard driver. which means > a) my changes add no value and just creates inconsistency. > or > b) there's an opportunity to fix up the rest of the gpio drivers as > well? Which I'll be happy to do. I think it is fine to fix this in drivers and we can fix the prototypes as well. Yours, Linus Walleij
On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 2:53 PM Hennie Muller <hm@bitlabs.co.za> wrote: > Fixes a couple of warnings by checkpatch and sparse. > > Signed-off-by: Hennie Muller <hm@bitlabs.co.za> Patch applied. Yours, Linus Walleij
diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-viperboard.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-viperboard.c index 9b604f13e302..c301c1d56dd2 100644 --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-viperboard.c +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-viperboard.c @@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ MODULE_PARM_DESC(gpioa_freq, /* ----- begin of gipo a chip -------------------------------------------- */ static int vprbrd_gpioa_get(struct gpio_chip *chip, - unsigned offset) + unsigned int offset) { int ret, answer, error = 0; struct vprbrd_gpio *gpio = gpiochip_get_data(chip); @@ -129,7 +129,7 @@ static int vprbrd_gpioa_get(struct gpio_chip *chip, } static void vprbrd_gpioa_set(struct gpio_chip *chip, - unsigned offset, int value) + unsigned int offset, int value) { int ret; struct vprbrd_gpio *gpio = gpiochip_get_data(chip); @@ -170,7 +170,7 @@ static void vprbrd_gpioa_set(struct gpio_chip *chip, } static int vprbrd_gpioa_direction_input(struct gpio_chip *chip, - unsigned offset) + unsigned int offset) { int ret; struct vprbrd_gpio *gpio = gpiochip_get_data(chip); @@ -207,7 +207,7 @@ static int vprbrd_gpioa_direction_input(struct gpio_chip *chip, } static int vprbrd_gpioa_direction_output(struct gpio_chip *chip, - unsigned offset, int value) + unsigned int offset, int value) { int ret; struct vprbrd_gpio *gpio = gpiochip_get_data(chip); @@ -251,8 +251,8 @@ static int vprbrd_gpioa_direction_output(struct gpio_chip *chip, /* ----- begin of gipo b chip -------------------------------------------- */ -static int vprbrd_gpiob_setdir(struct vprbrd *vb, unsigned offset, - unsigned dir) +static int vprbrd_gpiob_setdir(struct vprbrd *vb, unsigned int offset, + unsigned int dir) { struct vprbrd_gpiob_msg *gbmsg = (struct vprbrd_gpiob_msg *)vb->buf; int ret; @@ -273,7 +273,7 @@ static int vprbrd_gpiob_setdir(struct vprbrd *vb, unsigned offset, } static int vprbrd_gpiob_get(struct gpio_chip *chip, - unsigned offset) + unsigned int offset) { int ret; u16 val; @@ -305,7 +305,7 @@ static int vprbrd_gpiob_get(struct gpio_chip *chip, } static void vprbrd_gpiob_set(struct gpio_chip *chip, - unsigned offset, int value) + unsigned int offset, int value) { int ret; struct vprbrd_gpio *gpio = gpiochip_get_data(chip); @@ -338,7 +338,7 @@ static void vprbrd_gpiob_set(struct gpio_chip *chip, } static int vprbrd_gpiob_direction_input(struct gpio_chip *chip, - unsigned offset) + unsigned int offset) { int ret; struct vprbrd_gpio *gpio = gpiochip_get_data(chip); @@ -359,7 +359,7 @@ static int vprbrd_gpiob_direction_input(struct gpio_chip *chip, } static int vprbrd_gpiob_direction_output(struct gpio_chip *chip, - unsigned offset, int value) + unsigned int offset, int value) { int ret; struct vprbrd_gpio *gpio = gpiochip_get_data(chip);
Fixes a couple of warnings by checkpatch and sparse. Signed-off-by: Hennie Muller <hm@bitlabs.co.za> --- drivers/gpio/gpio-viperboard.c | 20 ++++++++++---------- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)