On Wed, 2016-01-20 at 20:07 +0000, Måns Rullgård wrote: > Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevche...@gmail.com> writes: > > > > > > > One comment still regarding to lli types. We can avoid > > > > > > warnings by > > > > > > using (__force u32) in macros. > > > > > > > > > > But that won't give the benefits of having the types checked. > > > > > > > > You mean if we access the lli->field directly? I didn't quite > > > > get what > > > > use case you are keeping in mind. > > > > > > Yes, accessing any of those fields directly with my patch gives a > > > sparse > > > warning. It's situations like these those checks are intended > > > for. > > > Defeating them seems foolish to me. > > > > Otherwise it makes that struct looks ugly. > > Why not union, though it still ugly, but less. > > What's so ugly about it? IMO data should be declared as the type it > actually is, and here we have fields that might have a different byte > order from the host CPU. The __be32 and __le32 types were invented > to > make such situations clear and allow automatic (sparse) > checking. I'd > say the price of one small typedef is well worth it. The actual code > is > not impacted since it must use the accessor macros anyhow.
Okay, let's move with current state. I have few style minors and a question. So, in type definitions can we use __dw32 instead of dw_u32? In DWC_DEFAULT_CTLLO() can we do tab indentation for \ ? Now the question: who do you prefer to submit the series (dw_dmac)? Me or you? In case you would like to do it (what I see in your dwc-sata branch today): Acked-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevche...@linux.intel.com> -- Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevche...@linux.intel.com> Intel Finland Oy
