On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 03:18:40PM +0530, sanjeev sharma wrote: > Hi Dan, > > > On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 11:34:18AM +0530, sanjeev sharma wrote: > > > From: sanjeevs1 <sanjeev_sharma@xxxxxxxxxx> > > ^^^^^^^^^ > > No. > > > > > > > > This is a patch to the r819xU_phy.c file that fixes up all the > > Error/Warning found by the checkpatch.pl tool > > > > Split it into one thing per patch. > > > > you mean to say Error and Warning should be fixed in separate patches ? patch 1: remove useless returns patch 2: too long lines patch 3: fix sleep ranges etc. > > > /* TODO: we should not delay such a long time. Ask for help from > > SD3 */ > > > - usleep_range(1000, 1000); > > > + usleep_range(1000, 2000); > > > > No. > > > > usleep_range(1000, 1001); > Above could be best fit to resolve the checkpatch error because > usleep_range() shouldn't use min ==max args; what you would suggest ? Just leave it alone until someone who knows the answer and has the hardware can change it. > > Adapter->HalFunc.LedControlHandler(Adapter, LED_CTL_NO_LINK); > > > + Adapter->HalFunc.LedControlHandler > > > + (Adapter, LED_CTL_NO_LINK); > > > > The original was more readable. > > > Don't we need to focus on Warning rather then readability ? No. Readability first. regards, dan carpenter _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
