Hi Jacopo,
for some reason your comment about "[PATCH 3/4] staging: improves
comparisons readability in atomisp-ov5693" did not reach my inbox.
Unfortunately I already sent PATCHv2 and it has been accepted.
Anyway...
> > @@ -780,7 +780,7 @@ static int __ov5693_otp_read(struct v4l2_subdev *sd, u8 *buf)
> > b = buf;
> > continue;
> > }
> > - } else if (27 == i) { //if the prvious 32bytes data doesn't exist, try to read the next 32bytes data again.
> > + } else if (i == 27) { //if the prvious 32bytes data doesn't exist, try to read the next 32bytes data again.
>
> I wonder why checkpatch does not complain about these C++ style
> comments clearly exceeding 80 columns...
>
It complained, but I didn't put that fix in this series. Should I have
cleaned those lines in the same commit since I was already touching
that part of the code? Or better in a separate patch?
> > if ((*b) == 0) {
> > dev->otp_size = 32;
> > break;
> > @@ -1351,7 +1351,7 @@ static int __power_up(struct v4l2_subdev *sd)
> > struct i2c_client *client = v4l2_get_subdevdata(sd);
> > int ret;
> >
> > - if (NULL == dev->platform_data) {
> > + if (!dev->platform_data) {
> Please mention in changelog that you're also substituting a comparison to
> NULL with this.
>
> Checkpatch points this out, didn't it?
It actually warned about the comparison that should place the constant
on the right side of the test. When fixing this, I used the "!foo"
syntax. I got your point though.
Thanks for your review!
Riccardo Schirone
