On Mon, Jun 08, 2020 at 07:02:27PM +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
Hi Mathieu,
On Mon, Jun 08, 2020 at 10:17:57AM -0600, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 08:46:59AM +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
Hi Mathieu,
On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 02:01:56PM -0600, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 09:37:22AM +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
The ADSP device uses the RPMsg API to connect vhost and VirtIO SOF Audio DSP drivers on KVM host and guest.
Signed-off-by: Guennadi Liakhovetski guennadi.liakhovetski@linux.intel.com
drivers/rpmsg/virtio_rpmsg_bus.c | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/drivers/rpmsg/virtio_rpmsg_bus.c b/drivers/rpmsg/virtio_rpmsg_bus.c index f3bd050..ebe3f19 100644 --- a/drivers/rpmsg/virtio_rpmsg_bus.c +++ b/drivers/rpmsg/virtio_rpmsg_bus.c @@ -949,6 +949,7 @@ static void rpmsg_remove(struct virtio_device *vdev)
static struct virtio_device_id id_table[] = { { VIRTIO_ID_RPMSG, VIRTIO_DEV_ANY_ID },
- { VIRTIO_ID_ADSP, VIRTIO_DEV_ANY_ID },
I am fine with this patch but won't add an RB because of the (many) checkpatch errors. Based on the comment I made on the previous set seeing those was unexpected.
Are you using "--strict?" Sorry, I don't see any checkpatch errors, only warnings.
No, plane checkpatch on the rproc-next branch.
Most of them are "over 80 characters" which as we now know is no more an issue,
There is a thread discussing the matter but I have not seen a clear resolution yet.
I think the resolution is pretty clear as defined by Linus, but maybe it has changed again since I last checked.
I just haven't updated my tree yet. Most others are really minor IMHO. Maybe one
Minor or not, if checkpatch complains then it is important enough to address. I am willing to overlook the lines over 80 characters but everything else needs to be dealt with.
Sure, checkpatch should be run before each patch submission and whatever it reports should be considered. As Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst clearly states:
"Check your patches with the patch style checker prior to submission (scripts/checkpatch.pl). Note, though, that the style checker should be viewed as a guide, not as a replacement for human judgment. If your code looks better with a violation then its probably best left alone."
So, yes, I checked all what checkepatch reported and used my judgement to decide which recommendations to take and which to ignore.
I will let Michael and friends decide how to handle checkpatch warnings in the vhost subsystem but as far as remoteproc/rpmsg are concerned, I will not review patches that trigger warnings.
There is a patch in linux-next that deprecates warnings for lines over 80 characters, so those are no longer a problem.
Thanks Guennadi
Thanks, Mathieu
of them I actually would want to fix - using "help" instead of "---help---" in Kconfig. What errors are you seeing in your checks?
Thanks Guennadi
Thanks, Mathieu
{ 0 }, };
-- 1.9.3