On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 04:44:48PM +0530, Mukesh Ojha wrote: > On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 10:36:10AM +0200, Stephan Gerhold wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 19, 2025 at 10:24:44PM +0530, Mukesh Ojha wrote: > [...] > > > diff --git a/drivers/soc/qcom/mdt_loader.c b/drivers/soc/qcom/mdt_loader.c > > > index ea7034c4b996..8456cca3f3e0 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/soc/qcom/mdt_loader.c > > > +++ b/drivers/soc/qcom/mdt_loader.c > > > @@ -22,7 +22,6 @@ > > > #include <linux/slab.h> > > > #include <linux/soc/qcom/mdt_loader.h> > > > > > > -#define MAX_RSCTABLE_SIZE SZ_16K; > > > > I'm confused why there is a semicolon here suddenly. Did you edit this > > patch by hand? > > > > Applying: remoteproc: pas: Extend parse_fw callback to parse resource table > > Patch failed at 0009 remoteproc: pas: Extend parse_fw callback to parse > > resource table > > error: patch failed: drivers/soc/qcom/mdt_loader.c:22 > > error: drivers/soc/qcom/mdt_loader.c: patch does not apply > > Yes, I did this edit just before sending when checkpatch caught this. > Will avoid this in future. >
Please don't edit patches manually, fix the commit instead. ;) > > > > > #define RSC_TABLE_HASH_BITS 5 // 32 buckets > > > > > > DEFINE_HASHTABLE(qcom_pas_rsc_table_map, RSC_TABLE_HASH_BITS); > > > diff --git a/include/linux/soc/qcom/mdt_loader.h > > > b/include/linux/soc/qcom/mdt_loader.h > > > index 62f239f64dfb..92ad862e733e 100644 > > > --- a/include/linux/soc/qcom/mdt_loader.h > > > +++ b/include/linux/soc/qcom/mdt_loader.h > > > @@ -8,6 +8,8 @@ > > > #define QCOM_MDT_TYPE_HASH (2 << 24) > > > #define QCOM_MDT_RELOCATABLE BIT(27) > > > > > > +#define MAX_RSCTABLE_SIZE SZ_16K > > > + > > > struct device; > > > struct firmware; > > > struct qcom_scm_pas_ctx; > > > > You added this define yourself in PATCH 08/11, so just add it in the > > right place directly. Make sure you scroll through your patch set before > > sending to make sure all changes are in the right commit. :-) > > I did this intentionally, because there is outside user of this macro > with this patch. > I don't think putting it in the header without an immediate user is a problem, as long as a user appears somewhere in the same series. Right now this patch touches multiple subsystems at once (qcom soc and remoteproc), which should be avoided when possible. Thanks, Stpehan
