On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 07:43:06PM +0200, Hawa, Hanna wrote: > On 12/20/2022 7:11 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 04:48:06PM +0000, Hanna Hawa wrote: ... > > > - return DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(ic_clk * tSYMBOL, MICRO) - 8 + offset; > > > + return DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL((u64)ic_clk * tSYMBOL, MICRO) - 8 + > > > + offset; > > > > Broken indentation. ... > > > - return DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(ic_clk * (tSYMBOL + tf), MICRO) - 3 + offset; > > > + return DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL((u64)ic_clk * (tSYMBOL + tf), > > > + MICRO) - 3 + offset; > > > > I would still go with 'MICRO) -' part to be on the previous line despite being > > over 80, this is logical split which increases readability. > > Okay.. will move the 'MICRO) -' one line before > > > > > - return DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(ic_clk * (tLOW + tf), MICRO) - 1 + offset; > > > + return DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL((u64)ic_clk * (tLOW + tf), MICRO) - 1 + > > > + offset; > > > > Broken indentation. > > Why it's broken indentation? I'm asking to know for the next time. The word > 'offset' is not part of DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL parentheses. In wrong > indentation the checkpatch shout about it, but it didn't happen with the > above. The continuation line of the expression should go under the opening parentheses, but you are right, the part outside DIV_ should be under D and not as you suggested below. But the problem is that you made illogical split while I suggested to leave DIV_...() on one line and the rest on the other. > Does the below the correct indentation? No. return DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL((u64)ic_clk * tSYMBOL, MICRO) - 8 + offset; return DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL((u64)ic_clk * (tSYMBOL + tf), MICRO) - 3 + offset; return DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL((u64)ic_clk * (tLOW + tf), MICRO) - 1 + offset; -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
