Yes I did ..the misalignment and indentations were not intentional
forgot to fix that but It was added to the patch.. will fix that on v 2
my first patch still working on how to do things properly :(
On a different note , I made some changes to the function.
Thanks for your message.
On 6/30/2018 7:20 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
On Sat, 2018-06-30 at 14:32 +0000, Tamir Suliman wrote:
---
drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_sh1106.c | 26 +++++++++++++-------------
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
Adding to what Greg's patchbot already wrote:
diff --git a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_sh1106.c b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_sh1106.c
[]
@@ -36,27 +36,27 @@ static int init_display(struct fbtft_par *par)
par->fbtftops.reset(par);
/* Set Display OFF */
- write_reg(par, 0xAE);
+ write_reg(par, 0xAE);
Nope.
You are overly indenting already correctly indented code.
Statements start in the same column unless following an
if/for/do/while/else/case.
@@ -89,8 +89,8 @@ static void set_addr_win(struct fbtft_par *par, int xs, int ys, int xe, int ye)
static int blank(struct fbtft_par *par, bool on)
{
- fbtft_par_dbg(DEBUG_BLANK, par, "%s(blank=%s)\n",
- __func__, on ? "true" : "false");
+ fbtft_par_dbg(DEBUG_BLANK, par, "%s(_func_=%s)\n",
+ __func__, on ? "true" : "false");
Again, nope.
Here you are misaligning a multi-line continuation
which is correctly aligned to the open parenthesis.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
