On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 10:34:43AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 11:28:06AM +0300, Dorcas Litunya wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 09:50:50AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 11:14:08PM +0300, Dorcas AnonoLitunya wrote:
> > > > Rename function displayControlAdjust_SM750E to
> > > > display_control_adjust_SM750E. This follows snakecase naming convention
> > > > and ensures a consistent naming style throughout the file. Issue found by
> > > > checkpatch.
> > > >
> > > > Mutes the following error:
> > > > CHECK:Avoid CamelCase: <displayControlAdjust_SM750E>
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Dorcas AnonoLitunya <anonolitunya@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/staging/sm750fb/ddk750_mode.c | 6 +++---
> > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/sm750fb/ddk750_mode.c b/drivers/staging/sm750fb/ddk750_mode.c
> > > > index e00a6cb31947..8708995f676c 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/staging/sm750fb/ddk750_mode.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/staging/sm750fb/ddk750_mode.c
> > > > @@ -14,8 +14,8 @@
> > > > * in bit 29:27 of Display Control register.
> > > > */
> > > > static unsigned long
> > > > -displayControlAdjust_SM750LE(struct mode_parameter *pModeParam,
> > > > - unsigned long dispControl)
> > > > +display_control_adjust_SM750LE(struct mode_parameter *pModeParam,
> > > > + unsigned long dispControl)
> > > > {
> > > > unsigned long x, y;
> > > >
> > > > @@ -125,7 +125,7 @@ static int programModeRegisters(struct mode_parameter *pModeParam,
> > > > tmp |= DISPLAY_CTRL_HSYNC_PHASE;
> > > >
> > > > if (sm750_get_chip_type() == SM750LE) {
> > > > - displayControlAdjust_SM750LE(pModeParam, tmp);
> > > > + display_control_adjust_SM750LE(pModeParam, tmp);
> > >
> > > Why is this function returning a value if it is just being ignored?
> > >
> > > It's not the issue here in the patch, but for future changes.
> > >
> > Hi Greg,
> >
> > I will do the correction in the next patchset to correct both functions
> > return value as this patchset was not focused on that. Does this mean
> > that this patchset has been accepted? Or should I submit another
> > patchset that includes the two changes suggested on function return
> > values?
>
> You'll get an email from my system when it is accepted, wait a day or so
> before worrying about that. And then send new patches on top of them
> then.
>
Thanks for the clarification Greg. I will wait for the confirmation
email from your system then send the new patches shortly afterwards.
thanks,
Dorcas
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
