On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 12:19:00PM +0300, Valentin, Eduardo wrote: > Hello Dan, > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Dan Carpenter > <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 11:11:27AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > >> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 07:06:52PM +0300, Eduardo Valentin wrote: > >> > From: J Keerthy <j-keerthy@xxxxxx> > >> > > >> > Removes checkpatch warnings on omap-bandgap.c. > >> > > >> > >> Which checkpatch.pl warnings? > >> > >> > + omap_bandgap_writel(bg_ptr, > >> > + rval->tshut_threshold, > >> > + tsr->tshut_threshold); > >> > >> That's just whacky. > >> > >> Personally, I've never cared much about long lines, so I'd prefer > >> to leave these as is until someone can break the functions up and > >> remove them in a proper way instead of just shifting everything > >> randomly to the left. > >> > > > > Sorry, that was my default response without looking at the code. > > > > This is already broken up into small functions pretty nicely. You > > might want to consider using shorter names. For example > > omap_bandgap_writel() could be changed to "obg_writel()" and "bg_ptr" > > could be changed to just "bg" because it's obviously a pointer. > > Yeah, that's one option. Of course the deal is to find the proper > balance between cryptic symbol names and code mangled / shifted to the > left. > Another option would be to just let checkpatch complain. It's a perl script, not the king of us. Do what looks the nicest to human beings. regards, dan carpenter _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
