From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Claude Code Review Bot To: dri-devel-reviews@example.com Subject: Claude review: soc: qcom: ubwc: use fixed values for UBWC swizzle for UBWC < 4.0 Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2026 07:21:54 +1000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20260311-ubwc-rework-v2-23-69f718f2a1c9@oss.qualcomm.com> References: <20260311-ubwc-rework-v2-0-69f718f2a1c9@oss.qualcomm.com> <20260311-ubwc-rework-v2-23-69f718f2a1c9@oss.qualcomm.com> X-Mailer: Claude Code Patch Reviewer Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MIME-Version: 1.0 Patch Review Derives swizzle values from version for UBWC < 4.0, removing the explicit `ubwc_swizzle` field for most SoCs. The `qcom_ubwc_swizzle()` function now returns computed values for UBWC < 4.0. There's a C99 mixed-declarations issue: ```c if (cfg->ubwc_enc_version < UBWC_4_0) return ...; u32 ubwc_swizzle = ...; ``` This variable declaration after a conditional return is valid C99/C11 but some older kernel coding style guidelines prefer all declarations at the top of the block. Worth checking if this triggers any warnings with kernel build flags. --- Generated by Claude Code Patch Reviewer