On 2018-06-12 08:09, Jarkko Nikula wrote: > On 06/11/2018 06:20 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >> On Mon, 2018-06-11 at 17:22 +0300, Jarkko Nikula wrote: >>> This is rather readability update than micro-optimization, or if not >>> optimization at all. We take the input clock rate to a variable and >>> pass >>> that to SCL timing parameter calculation functions. >>> >> >>> While at it, indent i2c_dw_scl_hcnt()/i2c_dw_scl_lcnt() argument list >>> to >>> the same alignment. Now first argument is off by one character. >> >> I think it still doesn't explain why instead of moving other lines, you >> split the first one in each excerpt like this. >> > Indentation goes too far right, each following line needs 7 spaces and > line length becomes over 80. I wouldn't like to go to that path. But the new line break does not make any sense *for this patch*. Just look at it! The white space changes only makes sense when considering patch 6. And that dependency is not mentioned in this commit message which makes any reviewer go WFT when looking at this patch. I.e. in my view the white space changes in this patch is just a preparation for patch 6. Which is a bit pointless, why do you not just move the white space cleanup from patch 4 to patch 6? Or do the cleanup here in patch 4, but do it in a way that makes sense by itself (and then, if needed, redo it in patch 6). Cheers, Peter
