On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 11:57:04PM +0000, ellwync@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> From: Ellwyn C <ellwync@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> This is a patch to the unioxx5.c file that fixes the 80 characters limit and
> printk warnings found by the checkpatch.pl tool
>
> Signed-off-by: Ellwyn C <ellwync@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/staging/comedi/drivers/unioxx5.c | 61 +++++++++++++++++++-----------
> 1 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/comedi/drivers/unioxx5.c b/drivers/staging/comedi/drivers/unioxx5.c
> index 598884e..0d91f53 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/comedi/drivers/unioxx5.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/comedi/drivers/unioxx5.c
> @@ -75,8 +75,10 @@ Devices: [Fastwel] UNIOxx-5 (unioxx5),
> /* 'private' structure for each subdevice */
> struct unioxx5_subd_priv {
> int usp_iobase;
> - unsigned char usp_module_type[12]; /* 12 modules. each can be 70L or 73L */
> - unsigned char usp_extra_data[12][4]; /* for saving previous written value for analog modules */
> + unsigned char usp_module_type[12];
> + /* 12 modules. each can be 70L or 73L */
No, it should be on the line before this, not after.
> + unsigned char usp_extra_data[12][4];
> + /* for saving previous written value for analog modules */
> unsigned char usp_prev_wr_val[3]; /* previous written value */
> unsigned char usp_prev_cn_val[3]; /* previous channel value */
> };
> @@ -99,7 +101,8 @@ static int __unioxx5_digital_write(struct unioxx5_subd_priv *usp,
> unsigned int *data, int channel, int minor);
> static int __unioxx5_digital_read(struct unioxx5_subd_priv *usp,
> unsigned int *data, int channel, int minor);
> -/* static void __unioxx5_digital_config(struct unioxx5_subd_priv* usp, int mode); */
> +/* static void __unioxx5_digital_config(struct unioxx5_subd_priv* usp, int mode)
> +; */
Don't put a ; on a new line, this is not needed at all.
> static int __unioxx5_analog_write(struct unioxx5_subd_priv *usp,
> unsigned int *data, int channel, int minor);
> static int __unioxx5_analog_read(struct unioxx5_subd_priv *usp,
> @@ -139,8 +142,10 @@ static int unioxx5_attach(struct comedi_device *dev,
> dev->iobase = iobase;
> iobase += UNIOXX5_SUBDEV_BASE;
>
> - /* defining number of subdevices and getting they types (it must be 'g01') */
> - for (i = n_subd = 0, ba = iobase; i < 4; i++, ba += UNIOXX5_SUBDEV_ODDS) {
> + /* defining number of subdevices and getting they types
> + (it must be 'g01') */
> + for (i = n_subd = 0, ba = iobase; i < 4; i++, ba +=
> + UNIOXX5_SUBDEV_ODDS) {
Ick, no, wrong way to indent this, sorry.
And see the proper way to handle multi-line comments, this isn't the way
to do this.
> id = inb(ba + 0xE);
> num = inb(ba + 0xF);
>
> @@ -169,7 +174,7 @@ static int unioxx5_attach(struct comedi_device *dev,
> return -1;
> }
>
> - printk("attached\n");
> + pr_info("attached\n");
This isnt needed at all.
> return 0;
> }
>
> @@ -181,7 +186,8 @@ static int unioxx5_subdev_read(struct comedi_device *dev,
> int channel, type;
>
> channel = CR_CHAN(insn->chanspec);
> - type = usp->usp_module_type[channel / 2]; /* defining module type(analog or digital) */
> + type = usp->usp_module_type[channel / 2];
> + /* defining module type(analog or digital) */
Same problem as above, and in other places in this patch.
Care to do it all over and resend?
thanks,
greg k-h
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
