Re: [PATCH v2 08/11] m68k: stmark2: add mcf5441x DAC platform devices
Angelo Dureghello <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.linux-m68k,org.infradead.lists.linux-arm-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-iio,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <y4zg2d5zghoz3miqevutiin5swfnx5y2zew2zlv4jklxsyly5g@sxeyvth2tkrk> |
Hi Andy,
On 13.05.2026 23:16, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, May 13, 2026 at 11:14:32AM +0200, Angelo Dureghello wrote:
>
> > Add mcf5441x DAC platform devices.
>
> ...
>
> > +static struct resource dac0_resource[] = {
> > + DEFINE_RES_MEM(MCFDAC_BASE0, 0x100),
> > +};
> > +
> > +static struct platform_device dac0_device = {
> > + .name = "mcf54415_dac",
> > + .id = 0,
> > + .num_resources = ARRAY_SIZE(dac0_resource),
> > + .resource = dac0_resource,
> > +};
>
> It can be
>
> static struct resource dac0_resource = DEFINE_RES_MEM(MCFDAC_BASE0, 0x100);
>
> static struct platform_device dac0_device = {
> .name = "mcf54415_dac",
> .id = 0,
> .num_resources = 1,
> .resource = &dac0_resource,
> };
>
> ...
>
> Same for the rest. But I haven't seen the followups and don't know if those
> structures are going to be expanded. The commit message doesn't say anything
> about that. So I assume my suggestion valid.
>
no. They are not going to be expanded, anyway, is there a real gain
using an hardcoded 1 there ?
Would not reissue a v3 for this honestly.
> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
>
>
Regards,
angelo