On 28/05/16 06:26, Ravishankar Karkala Mallikarjunayya wrote: > This is a patch to the s626.c file that fixes up a type issues like > i.e Prefer kernel type 'u8' over 'uint8_t' > Prefer kernel type 'u16' over 'uint16_t' > Prefer kernel type 'u32' over 'uint32_t' > Prefer kernel type 's16' over 'int16_t' > Prefer kernel type 's32' over 'int32_t' > found by the checkpatch.pl tool. > > Signed-off-by: Ravishankar Karkala Mallikarjunayya <ravishankarkm32@xxxxxxxxx> >From the CodingStyle [0]: "Although it would only take a short amount of time for the eyes and brain to become accustomed to the standard types like 'uint32_t', some people object to their use anyway. Therefore, the Linux-specific 'u8/u16/u32/u64' types and their signed equivalents which are identical to standard types are permitted -- although they are not mandatory in new code of your own. When editing existing code which already uses one or the other set of types, you should conform to the existing choices in that code." Not sure why checkpatch complains about this when the CodingStyle suggests to conform to the choice in the existing code. Anybody can shed some light on this? Thanks, Luis [0] https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/CodingStyle#n318 _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
