Staging: octeon: Apply Licence and resolves warnings according to TODO list. There are also a few "checks" that probably should revised but i think most of them could be resolved by breaking down cvmx_usb_poll_channel()
PATCH 1/1 Staging: octeon: Apply Licence and resolves warnings according to TODO list. There are also a few "checks" that probably should revised but i think most of them could be resolved by breaking down cvmx_usb_poll_channel()
--- drivers/staging/octeon-usb/octeon-hcd.c | 55 ++++++++++++++++++--------------- drivers/staging/octeon-usb/octeon-hcd.h | 1 + 2 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
drivers/staging/octeon-usb/octeon-hcd.c +30 -25
@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@ +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 /* * This file is subject to the terms and conditions of the GNU General Public * License. See the file "COPYING" in the main directory of this archive
@@ -377,27 +378,29 @@ struct octeon_hcd { };/* This macro spins on a register waiting for it to reach a condition. */ -#define CVMX_WAIT_FOR_FIELD32 (address, _union, cond, timeout_usec) \ - ({int result; \ - do { \ - u64 done = cvmx_get_cycle() + (u64)timeout_usec * \ - octeon_get_clock_rate() / 1000000; \ - union _union c; \ - \ - while (1) { \ - c.u32 = cvmx_usb_read_csr32(usb, address); \ - \ - if (cond) { \ - result = 0; \ - break; \ - } else if (cvmx_get_cycle() > done) { \ - result = -1; \ - break; \ - } else \ - __delay(100); \ - } \ - } while (0); \ - result; }) +#define CVMX_WAIT_FOR_FIELD32 (address, _union, cond, timeout_usec) \ +({ \ + int result; \ + do { \ + u64 done = cvmx_get_cycle() + (u64)(timeout_usec) * \ + octeon_get_clock_rate() / 1000000; \ + union _union c; \ + \ + while (1) { \ + c.u32 = cvmx_usb_read_csr32(usb, address); \ + \ + if (cond) { \ + result = 0; \ + break; \ + } else if (cvmx_get_cycle() > done) { \ + result = -1; \ + break; \ + } else \ + __delay(100); \ + } \ + } while (0); \ + result; \ +})/* * This macro logically sets a single field in a CSR. It does the sequence
@@ -2636,12 +2639,14 @@ static int cvmx_usb_poll_channel(struct octeon_hcd *usb, int channel) hcintmsk.u32 =0 ; hcintmsk.s.chhltdmsk =1 ;cvmx_usb_write_csr32 (usb, -CVMX_USBCX_HCINTMSKX (channel, usb->index), - hcintmsk.u32); +CVMX_USBCX_HCINTMSKX (channel, + usb->index), + hcintmsk.u32); usbc_hcchar.s.chdis =1 ;cvmx_usb_write_csr32 (usb, -CVMX_USBCX_HCCHARX (channel, usb->index), - usbc_hcchar.u32); +CVMX_USBCX_HCCHARX (channel, + usb->index), + usbc_hcchar.u32);return 0 ; }else if (usbc_hcint.s.xfercompl) {/*
drivers/staging/octeon-usb/octeon-hcd.h +1 -0
@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@ +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */ /* * Octeon HCD hardware register definitions. *
Signature · 1 line
2.16.4
Greg KH
maintainerQuoted 4 lines · Georgios Tsotsos
Signed-off-by Georgios Tsotsos <[email protected]>--- drivers/staging/octeon-usb/octeon-hcd.c | 55 ++++++++++++++++++--------------- drivers/staging/octeon-usb/octeon-hcd.h | 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 specify a description of why the patch is needed, or possibly, any description at all, in the email body. Please read the section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the kernel file, Documentation/SubmittingPatches for what is needed in order to properly describe the change.
- 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