On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 01:18:28PM +0100, Simon Horman wrote: > On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 09:29:43PM +0200, Jacek Kowalski wrote: > > Hi Jacek, > > Thanks for the patchset. > > Some feedback at a high level: > > 1. It's normal for patch-sets, to have a cover letter. > That provides a handy place for high level comments, > perhaps ironically, such as this one. > > 2. Please provide some text in the patch description. > I know these changes are trivial. But we'd like to have something there. > E.g. > > Remove unnecessary cast of constants to u16, > allowing the C type system to do it's thing. > > No behavioural change intended. > Compile tested only. > > 3. This patchset should probably be targeted at iwl-next, like this: > > Subject: [PATCH iwl-next] ... > > 4. Please make sure the patchset applies cleanly to it's target tree. > It seems that in it's current form the patchset doesn't > apply to iwl-next or net-next. > > 5. It's up to you. But in general there is no need > to CC [email protected] on Networking patches > > > Signed-off-by: Jacek Kowalski <[email protected]> > > Suggested-by: Simon Horman <[email protected]> > > As for this patch itself, it looks good to me. > But I think you missed two. > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000/e1000_hw.c > b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000/e1000_hw.c > index b5a31e8d84f4..0e5de52b1067 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000/e1000_hw.c > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000/e1000_hw.c > @@ -3997,7 +3997,7 @@ s32 e1000_update_eeprom_checksum(struct e1000_hw *hw) > } > checksum += eeprom_data; > } > - checksum = (u16)EEPROM_SUM - checksum; > + checksum = EEPROM_SUM - checksum; > if (e1000_write_eeprom(hw, EEPROM_CHECKSUM_REG, 1, &checksum) < 0) { > e_dbg("EEPROM Write Error\n"); > return -E1000_ERR_EEPROM; > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/nvm.c > b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/nvm.c > index 1c9071396b3c..556dbefdcef9 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/nvm.c > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/nvm.c > @@ -588,7 +588,7 @@ s32 e1000e_update_nvm_checksum_generic(struct e1000_hw > *hw) > } > checksum += nvm_data; > } > - checksum = (u16)NVM_SUM - checksum; > + checksum = NVM_SUM - checksum; > ret_val = e1000_write_nvm(hw, NVM_CHECKSUM_REG, 1, &checksum); > if (ret_val) > e_dbg("NVM Write Error while updating checksum.\n");
Sorry, I now see that the 2nd of the two hunks above is for patch 2/4.
