Hi Jonathan, > On Fri, 16 Feb 2018 11:16:58 -0200 > Rodrigo Siqueira <rodrigosiqueiramelo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Hi Daniel > > > > > Hi Rodrigo, > > > > > > I think this is a nice finding. One comment inline: > > > > > > On Vi, 2018-02-16 at 10:50 -0200, rodrigosiqueira wrote: > > > > This patch fixes the checkpatch.pl warning: > > > > > > > > drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7854.h:157: WARNING: function definition > > > > argument 'struct device *' should also have an identifier name... > > > > > > > > + int (*read_reg_32)(struct device *dev, u16 reg_address, u32 *val); > > > > + int (*write_reg_8)(struct device *dev, u16 reg_address, u8 value); > > > > > > > > > Any particular reason for using val vs value? I get that one is a pointer > > > and another a plain type, but I think the name should be the same. > > > > Before I selected the name, I figure out that read_reg_* and write_reg_* > > was assigned inside the iio/meter/ade7754-(i2c|spi).c files by function > > like ade7754_*_read_reg_* and ade7754_*_write_reg_* . > > > > I considered to use 'value' name for both functions parameters, however, > > I noticed that function ade7754_*_write_reg_* adopted the name 'value' > > for the last argument and ade7754_*_read_reg_* named the last argument > > as 'val'. So, for consistency sake between the header file and the c > > code, I decided to use the same parameter name patterns. > > > Hohum. It isn't even that consistent ;) > > ade7754_write_reg_8 uses val and ade7754_write_reg_16 uses value. > > I would suggest another patch to make them all val. Thanks for the review. I will send another patch as you recommended. Rodrigo Siqueira > Thanks, > > Jonathan > > > > > thanks, > > > Daniel. > > > > > > > Thanks > _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
