Hi Farid, Wolfram, On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 00:01:55 +0200, Farid Hammane wrote: > This patch fixes coding style issues found by checkpatch.pl. > i2c-algo-pca.c has been built successfully after applying this patch. > > Signed-off-by: Farid Hammane <farid.hammane@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/i2c/algos/i2c-algo-pca.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++------------------ > 1 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/i2c/algos/i2c-algo-pca.c b/drivers/i2c/algos/i2c-algo-pca.c > index dcdaf8e..ca817f8 100644 > --- a/drivers/i2c/algos/i2c-algo-pca.c > +++ b/drivers/i2c/algos/i2c-algo-pca.c > @@ -37,15 +37,15 @@ > > static int i2c_debug; > > -#define pca_outw(adap, reg, val) adap->write_byte(adap->data, reg, val) > -#define pca_inw(adap, reg) adap->read_byte(adap->data, reg) > +#define pca_outw(adap, reg, val) (adap->write_byte(adap->data, reg, val)) > +#define pca_inw(adap, reg) (adap->read_byte(adap->data, reg)) I'm confused by these changes. For one thing, macros which are shortcuts for function calls normally don't need surrounding parentheses. If checkpatch.pl complains about that, I would call it a false positive, unless someone can prove me wrong with a real-world case where these surrounding parentheses help. For another, macro _parameters_ normally need parentheses for each non-trivial use. I would thus expect the following to be correct: #define pca_outw(adap, reg, val) (adap)->write_byte((adap)->data, reg, val) #define pca_inw(adap, reg) (adap)->read_byte((adap)->data, reg) Or is it just me? > > #define pca_status(adap) pca_inw(adap, I2C_PCA_STA) > -#define pca_clock(adap) adap->i2c_clock > +#define pca_clock(adap) (adap->i2c_clock) > #define pca_set_con(adap, val) pca_outw(adap, I2C_PCA_CON, val) > #define pca_get_con(adap) pca_inw(adap, I2C_PCA_CON) > -#define pca_wait(adap) adap->wait_for_completion(adap->data) > -#define pca_reset(adap) adap->reset_chip(adap->data) > +#define pca_wait(adap) (adap->wait_for_completion(adap->data)) > +#define pca_reset(adap) (adap->reset_chip(adap->data)) Same here... I'm fine with all other changes. But checkpatch.pl spouts 2 more errors to me, which we've discussed before. I'm curious why you didn't fix them? Just replace each block of 8 spaces with one tab. ERROR: code indent should use tabs where possible #181: FILE: i2c/algos/i2c-algo-pca.c:181: + struct i2c_msg *msgs,$ ERROR: code indent should use tabs where possible #182: FILE: i2c/algos/i2c-algo-pca.c:182: + int num)$ -- Jean Delvare -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
