On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:35:42AM +0530, Devendra Naga wrote:
> fixed some of the coding style problems reported by checkpatch
>
> Signed-off-by: Devendra Naga <devendra.aaru@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/staging/rtl8192u/r8180_93cx6.c | 36 +++++++++++++++++---------------
> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8192u/r8180_93cx6.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8192u/r8180_93cx6.c
> index 3c515b7..19f5270 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8192u/r8180_93cx6.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8192u/r8180_93cx6.c
> @@ -22,13 +22,16 @@
>
> void eprom_cs(struct net_device *dev, short bit)
> {
> - if(bit)
> + if (bit) {
> + /* enable EPROM */
> write_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD,
> - (1<<EPROM_CS_SHIFT) | \
> - read_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD)); //enable EPROM
> - else
> - write_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD, read_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD)\
> - &~(1<<EPROM_CS_SHIFT)); //disable EPROM
> + (1<<EPROM_CS_SHIFT) |
> + read_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD));
> + } else {
> + /* disable EPROM */
> + write_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD, read_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD)
> + & ~(1<<EPROM_CS_SHIFT));
> + }
>
> force_pci_posting(dev);
> udelay(EPROM_DELAY);
> @@ -38,24 +41,24 @@ void eprom_cs(struct net_device *dev, short bit)
> void eprom_ck_cycle(struct net_device *dev)
> {
> write_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD,
> - (1<<EPROM_CK_SHIFT) | read_nic_byte_E(dev,EPROM_CMD));
> + (1<<EPROM_CK_SHIFT) | read_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD));
> force_pci_posting(dev);
> udelay(EPROM_DELAY);
> write_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD,
> - read_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD) &~ (1<<EPROM_CK_SHIFT));
> + read_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD) & ~(1<<EPROM_CK_SHIFT));
> force_pci_posting(dev);
> udelay(EPROM_DELAY);
> }
>
>
> -void eprom_w(struct net_device *dev,short bit)
> +void eprom_w(struct net_device *dev, short bit)
> {
> - if(bit)
> - write_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD, (1<<EPROM_W_SHIFT) | \
> - read_nic_byte_E(dev,EPROM_CMD));
> + if (bit)
> + write_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD, (1<<EPROM_W_SHIFT) |
> + read_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD));
> else
> - write_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD, read_nic_byte_E(dev,EPROM_CMD)\
> - &~(1<<EPROM_W_SHIFT));
> + write_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD, read_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD)
> + & ~(1<<EPROM_W_SHIFT));
>
> force_pci_posting(dev);
> udelay(EPROM_DELAY);
> @@ -66,11 +69,10 @@ short eprom_r(struct net_device *dev)
> {
> short bit;
>
> - bit=(read_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD) & (1<<EPROM_R_SHIFT) );
> + bit = (read_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD) & (1<<EPROM_R_SHIFT));
> udelay(EPROM_DELAY);
>
> - if(bit) return 1;
> - return 0;
> + return !!bit;
Oh come on, really? !! is more "clear" here?
No, please be painfully obvious, that's the only way to write kernel
code. Not like this.
greg k-h
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
