Hi Armando,
On 14.03.19 12:13, Armando Miraglia wrote:
My answers are in-line below. BTW bare with me as this is my attempt to get my
feet wet in how to contribute to the linux kernel for my own pleasure and
interest :)
On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 03:34:54PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 01:24:04PM +0100, Armando Miraglia wrote:
Running Lindent on the mt7621-spi.c file in drivers/staging I noticed that the
file contained style issues. This change attempts to address such style
problems.
Don't run lindent. I think checkpatch.pl has a --fix option that might
be better, but once the code is merged then our standard become much
higher for follow up patches.
Signed-off-by: Armando Miraglia <armax@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
NOTE: resend this patch to include all mainteners listed by get_mantainers.pl.
drivers/staging/mt7621-spi/spi-mt7621.c | 27 +++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/staging/mt7621-spi/spi-mt7621.c b/drivers/staging/mt7621-spi/spi-mt7621.c
index b509f9fe3346..03d53845f8c5 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/mt7621-spi/spi-mt7621.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/mt7621-spi/spi-mt7621.c
@@ -52,14 +52,14 @@
#define MT7621_LSB_FIRST BIT(3)
struct mt7621_spi {
- struct spi_master *master;
- void __iomem *base;
- unsigned int sys_freq;
- unsigned int speed;
- struct clk *clk;
- int pending_write;
-
- struct mt7621_spi_ops *ops;
+ struct spi_master *master;
+ void __iomem *base;
+ unsigned int sys_freq;
+ unsigned int speed;
+ struct clk *clk;
+ int pending_write;
+
+ struct mt7621_spi_ops *ops;
The original is fine. I don't encourage people to do fancy indenting
with their local variable declarations inside functions but for a struct
the declarations aren't going to change a lot so people can get fancy
if they want.
Is there an explicit intent to deprecate Lindent in favor of checkpatch.pl
--fix? If one would like to contribute to fixing the tooling for linting which
of the two would be the right target for such an effort?
The problem with a local is if you need to add a new variable then you
have to re-indent a bunch of unrelated lines or have one out of
alignment line. Most people know this intuitively so they don't get
fancy.
};
static inline struct mt7621_spi *spidev_to_mt7621_spi(struct spi_device *spi)
@@ -303,7 +303,7 @@ static int mt7621_spi_setup(struct spi_device *spi)
struct mt7621_spi *rs = spidev_to_mt7621_spi(spi);
if ((spi->max_speed_hz == 0) ||
- (spi->max_speed_hz > (rs->sys_freq / 2)))
+ (spi->max_speed_hz > (rs->sys_freq / 2)))
Yeah. Lindent is correct here.
Funny enough, this is something I adjusted manually :)
spi->max_speed_hz = (rs->sys_freq / 2);
if (spi->max_speed_hz < (rs->sys_freq / 4097)) {
@@ -316,9 +316,10 @@ static int mt7621_spi_setup(struct spi_device *spi)
}
static const struct of_device_id mt7621_spi_match[] = {
- { .compatible = "ralink,mt7621-spi" },
+ {.compatible = "ralink,mt7621-spi"},
The original was better.
{},
};
+
MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, mt7621_spi_match);
No need for a blank. These are closely related.
Ack.
static int mt7621_spi_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
@@ -408,9 +409,9 @@ MODULE_ALIAS("platform:" DRIVER_NAME);
static struct platform_driver mt7621_spi_driver = {
.driver = {
- .name = DRIVER_NAME,
- .of_match_table = mt7621_spi_match,
- },
+ .name = DRIVER_NAME,
+ .of_match_table = mt7621_spi_match,
+ },
The new indenting is very wrong.
Ack. In fact, I was thinking this could be one target to fix the logic in
Lindent to do this appropriately.
I have a process question here: to post a change for the only accepted change I
have in this patch should I send out a new patch?
Would it be possible for you to wait a bit with this minor cleanup?
As I'm preparing a patch to move this driver out of staging right
now. You can definitely follow-up with your cleanup, once this move
is done. Otherwise the move might be delayed even more.
Thanks,
Stefan
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
