On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 12:35:14PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tue, Jun 10, 2025, at 12:26, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 11:24:38AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
... > >> +static noinline_for_stack void fbtft_write_register_64(struct fbtft_par > >> *par, > >> + int i, int buf[64]) > > > > Perhaps int i, int buf[64] should be u32? > > Right, I can send an updated patch, or this could be fixed up when applying > the patch Greg doesn't do that (or won't do anyway), so either a followup or a v2. ... > > Wondering if we may reuse this in other cases (by providing the additional > > length parameter). But it may be done later on. > > I tried this and that quickly became a mess. It is probably a good > idea to rework the code to completely avoid the varargs function > pointer and instead take an array here, but this is not something > I could easily do myself as that takes more time and needs better > testing. Right and this driver in any case in a frozen position, so it might never happen, though. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
