Sending this mail again as I missed to reply to all.
Hi Alex,
I agree those are called bit-field member names rather than labels.
But the reason I mentioned is because the ./scripts/checkpatch.pl
gave out a warning saying "labels should not be indented".
Sorry for the confusion in the name I referred to. So, I think this
change is needed as I feel this is not following the coding-style by
having indent before the width for bit field member. I went through
other places in source code to make sure this is correct, and sent the
patch after confirmation.
Regards,
Manikishan Ghantasala
On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 at 19:13, Alex Elder <elder@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 6/2/21 8:36 AM, sh4nnu wrote:
> > From: Manikishan Ghantasala <manikishanghantasala@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > staging: greybus: gpio.c: Clear coding-style problem
> > "labels should not be indented" by removing indentation.
>
> These are not labels.
>
> I don't really understand what you're doing here.
>
> Can you please explain why you think this needs changing?
>
> -Alex
>
> > Signed-off-by: Manikishan Ghantasala <manikishanghantasala@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/staging/greybus/gpio.c | 6 +++---
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/greybus/gpio.c b/drivers/staging/greybus/gpio.c
> > index 7e6347fe93f9..4661f4a251bd 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/greybus/gpio.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/greybus/gpio.c
> > @@ -20,9 +20,9 @@
> > struct gb_gpio_line {
> > /* The following has to be an array of line_max entries */
> > /* --> make them just a flags field */
> > - u8 active: 1,
> > - direction: 1, /* 0 = output, 1 = input */
> > - value: 1; /* 0 = low, 1 = high */
> > + u8 active:1,
> > + direction:1, /* 0 = output, 1 = input */
> > + value:1; /* 0 = low, 1 = high */
> > u16 debounce_usec;
> >
> > u8 irq_type;
> >
>
_______________________________________________
greybus-dev mailing list
greybus-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/greybus-dev
|