On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 11:28 AM Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Create a local gpiolib-of.h header and move stuff around a > > bit to get a clean cut. > > Are you going to split ACPI parts as well (at least to a header)? Yeah when I find time, unless you beat me to it :D > One nit to address below (sorry, didn't notice before), and take mine > Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Thanks! > > - if (!gpiochip->need_valid_mask) > > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF_GPIO)) > > + gc->need_valid_mask = of_gpio_need_valid_mask(gc); > > gpiochip->need_valid_mask = of_gpio_need_valid_mask(gpiochip); > > Even with full name it fits 80. > Can you drop renaming here? The renaming is drive-by syntax fixing. I want to change all of these variable to just "gc" to declutter the code. When I touch functions I already work on I change it a bit here and there. I'm fine with unrelated syntax and style fixes in patches to some extent, I'm not one of those who dislike it. I just follow Documentation/process/4.Coding.rst, given the number of independent patches for coding style I get people seem not to have read this at all: "pure coding style fixes are seen as noise by the development community; they tend to get a chilly reception. So this type of patch is best avoided. It is natural to fix the style of a piece of code while working on it for other reasons, but coding style changes should not be made for their own sake." I just accept both: separate coding style fixes and changing the style while changing the code. Yours, Linus Walleij