[U-Boot] [PATCH 1/2] mmc: tmio: Pass full address to tmio_sd_addr_is_dmaable()

[Marek Vasut]

On 10/09/2018 05:35 PM, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 11:55 PM Marek Vasut <marek.vasut at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 10/09/2018 02:24 PM, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
>>> Hi Marek,
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 8:26 PM Marek Vasut <marek.vasut at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Pass the entire source data pointer to tmio_sd_addr_is_dmaable()
>>>
>>>
>>> This statement sounds like
>>> the current code is passing the pointer address only partially.
>>> Is it right?
>>
>> With this change it is.
> 
> 
> Is anything wrong with my code?

Don't think so.

> How about your patch title
> "mmc: tmio: Pass full address to tmio_sd_addr_is_dmaable()" ?
> 
> Does it mean my code is not passing full address?

Could use a rephrasing, yeah

>>>> so we don't have to apply casts throughout the code.
>>>
>>> I do not understand this either
>>> since I see a cast in your code too.
>>
>> There is a cast, but it's isolated to this function.
>>
>>> In the previous code, the caller casts src->address
>>> when it passes it to tmio_sd_addr_is_dmaable().
>>>
>>> In the new code, 'src' is casted
>>> in tmio_sd_addr_is_dmaable().
>>>
>>> To me, you just moved the location of casting.
>>> What is the difference (i.e. benefit)?
>>
>> I moved the cast from the code into the function, which I think is cleaner.
> 
> I do not think so.

So would you prefer to see stuff like

function foo(long bar)
{...}

foo((cast)baz);

...

foo((cast)quux);

In the code  :)

> If you like this patch, just go for it.
> 
> But, I believe you need to update the patch title and description
> since this is just a matter of personal preference.
> 
> 


-- 
Best regards,
Marek Vasut