On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 05:11:53PM +0400, Sepehrdad Sh wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 29, 2018, 12:03 Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > <mailto:gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 10:08:28PM +0400, sepehrdad.dev@xxxxxxxxx > <mailto:sepehrdad.dev@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > From: sepehrdad sh <sepehrdad.dev@xxxxxxxxx > <mailto:sepehrdad.dev@xxxxxxxxx>> > > > > Fixed multiple coding style issue > > > > Signed-off-by: Sepehrdad Sh <sepehrdad.dev@xxxxxxxxx > <mailto:sepehrdad.dev@xxxxxxxxx>> > > > Your subject line is very odd :( > > > --- a/drivers/staging/fbtft/flexfb.c > > +++ b/drivers/staging/fbtft/flexfb.c > > @@ -667,11 +667,14 @@ static int flexfb_probe_common(struct > spi_device *sdev, > > case 8: > > par->fbtftops.write_vmem = > fbtft_write_vmem16_bus8; > > if (!par->startbyte) > > - par->fbtftops.verify_gpios = flexfb_verify_gpios_dc; > > + par->fbtftops.verify_gpios = ( > > + flexfb_verify_gpios_dc); > > That's a very strange change. Do you know C well? Because this is not > how you do such a modification :( > > thanks, > > greg k-h > > Forgot to cc the mailing list. > I do know C and I have tested the change on a smaller program and it worked. > but I think if I did it this way would have been better: > > > par->fbtftops.verify_gpios = > flexfb_verify_gpios_dc; Yes, that would be better, but really, the code is fine as it is. checkpatch.pl is a hint, you do not have to follow it exactly, it is there to make our lives easier, not harder. thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
