Absolutely!
Cheers,
A.
On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 12:36 PM Stefan Roese <sr@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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
