Re: [PATCH v2] drivers:edac: Use DEVICE_ATTR helper macros

[Dwaipayan Ray]

On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 1:14 AM Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jul 11, 2021 at 07:40:02PM +0530, Dwaipayan Ray wrote:
> > Instead of "open coding" DEVICE_ATTR, use the corresponding
> > helper macros DEVICE_ATTR_{RW,RO_WO} in amd64_edac.c
> >
>
> I think you meant to write "RO,WO" rather than "RO_WO", correct?
>

Yes that's correct. It's a typo. I will fix it.

> Was this change inspired by a code-checking tool or script?
>

Yes, the particular warnings were detected via a checkpatch run on
the whole kernel and screening for really unwanted violations.
However, the changes were made manually.


> > Some function names needed to be changed to match the device
> > conventions <foo>_show and <foo>_store, but the functionality
> > itself is unchanged.
> >
> > The devices using EDAC_DCT_ATTR_SHOW() are left unchanged.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dwaipayan Ray <dwaipayanray1@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >
> > Changes in v2:
> > - Revert back the device name changes which broke
> >   the kernel. These were using the macro EDAC_DCT_ATTR_SHOW()
> >   to construct the show methods based on device name.
> >   Reported by Kernel test bot.
> >
> >  drivers/edac/amd64_edac.c | 21 ++++++++-------------
> >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> >
>
> The $SUBJECT should say something like "EDAC/amd64" since the change is
> wholly within amd64_edac.c. Using "driver:edac" makes it seem like this
> patch affects multiple EDAC modules.
>

That makes sense. I will send in a new patch with these updates.

> But otherwise it looks good to me.
>
> Reviewed-by: Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@xxxxxxx>
>
> Thanks,
> Yazen

Thanks for the review,
Dwaipayan.