WARNING: added, moved or deleted file(s), does MAINTAINERS need updating?
#51: 
new file mode 100644

CHECK: Macro argument 'a' may be better as '(a)' to avoid precedence issues
#97: FILE: drivers/rpmsg/rpmsg_usrsock.c:42:
+#define rpmsg_usrsock_datareq_ack(a, d, l)                                 \
+	char a##buf[l = rpmsg_get_max_bufsize((d)->ept)] __aligned(8);     \
+	struct usrsock_message_datareq_ack_s *a =                          \
+		rpmsg_usrsock_need_copy(d) ? (void *)a##buf :              \
+		rpmsg_get_tx_payload_buffer((d)->ept, (unsigned int *)&l, 1)

CHECK: Macro argument reuse 'd' - possible side-effects?
#97: FILE: drivers/rpmsg/rpmsg_usrsock.c:42:
+#define rpmsg_usrsock_datareq_ack(a, d, l)                                 \
+	char a##buf[l = rpmsg_get_max_bufsize((d)->ept)] __aligned(8);     \
+	struct usrsock_message_datareq_ack_s *a =                          \
+		rpmsg_usrsock_need_copy(d) ? (void *)a##buf :              \
+		rpmsg_get_tx_payload_buffer((d)->ept, (unsigned int *)&l, 1)

CHECK: Macro argument reuse 'l' - possible side-effects?
#97: FILE: drivers/rpmsg/rpmsg_usrsock.c:42:
+#define rpmsg_usrsock_datareq_ack(a, d, l)                                 \
+	char a##buf[l = rpmsg_get_max_bufsize((d)->ept)] __aligned(8);     \
+	struct usrsock_message_datareq_ack_s *a =                          \
+		rpmsg_usrsock_need_copy(d) ? (void *)a##buf :              \
+		rpmsg_get_tx_payload_buffer((d)->ept, (unsigned int *)&l, 1)

total: 0 errors, 1 warnings, 3 checks, 1190 lines checked

NOTE: For some of the reported defects, checkpatch may be able to
      mechanically convert to the typical style using --fix or --fix-inplace.

./linux-sof-driver/0001-rpmsg-add-socket-API-redirection-driver.patch has style problems, please review.

NOTE: If any of the errors are false positives, please report
      them to the maintainer, see CHECKPATCH in MAINTAINERS.