On Tue, 2020-04-28 at 17:50 -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 5:38 PM Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, 2020-04-28 at 17:23 -0700, Douglas Anderson wrote: > > > When I copied the function prototypes from the GPIO header file into > > > my own driver, checkpatch yelled at me saying that I shouldn't use use > > > "unsigned" but instead should say "unsigned int". Let's make the > > > header file use "unsigned int" so others who copy like I did won't get > > > yelled at. > > > > There are a few other unsigned declarations in the file. > > There are? I swear I looked for them before I sent my patch and I > couldn't find them. Then I looked again upon seeing your reply and I > still can't find them. My eyes are bad, though. Maybe you can give > me specifics? $ git grep -P -n '\bunsigned\s+(?!int|long)' include/linux/gpio/driver.h include/linux/gpio/driver.h:352: unsigned offset); include/linux/gpio/driver.h:354: unsigned offset); include/linux/gpio/driver.h:356: unsigned offset); include/linux/gpio/driver.h:358: unsigned offset); include/linux/gpio/driver.h:360: unsigned offset, int value); include/linux/gpio/driver.h:362: unsigned offset); include/linux/gpio/driver.h:367: unsigned offset, int value); include/linux/gpio/driver.h:372: unsigned offset, include/linux/gpio/driver.h:375: unsigned offset); include/linux/gpio/driver.h:462: unsigned offset); include/linux/gpio/driver.h:660:int gpiochip_generic_request(struct gpio_chip *gc, unsigned offset); include/linux/gpio/driver.h:661:void gpiochip_generic_free(struct gpio_chip *gc, unsigned offset); include/linux/gpio/driver.h:662:int gpiochip_generic_config(struct gpio_chip *gc, unsigned offset, > > Maybe do all of them (and remove the unnecessary externs)? > > You mean just remove the word "extern" everywhere in this file? Sure, > I can if you want. Up to the actual maintainers I suppose. There are only a few extern function declarations. Most do not use extern. > > trivial reformatting of the function pointer block too > > Wow, I must be totally out of it. Maybe it's the gin and tonic I just > had. I don't understand this comment either. Can you clarify? int (*foo)(..., ...); might be better with fewer tabs between return type and function pointer int (*foo)(..., ...); cheers, oe