On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 10:55 PM Seongyong Park
<euphoriccatface@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 2021년 6월 10일 (목) 오전 8:13, Seongyong Park <euphoriccatface@xxxxxxxxx>님이 작성:
> >
> > 2021년 6월 9일 (수) 오후 4:14, Matt Ranostay <matt.ranostay@xxxxxxxxxxxx>님이 작성:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 8:25 AM Seongyong Park <euphoriccatface@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > - .height = 26, /* 24 lines of pixel data + 2 lines of processing data */
> > > > + .height = 27,
> > > > + /* 24 lines of pixel data + 2 lines of processing data + 1 line of registers */
> > >
> > > Guess you hit the 80 character line here and checkpatch.pl complained
> > > .. But should all be one line since it is
> > > much more clear on one line.
> > >
> > > > };
> > > >
> > > > static const struct regmap_config amg88xx_regmap_config = {
> > > > @@ -168,8 +169,12 @@ static int amg88xx_xfer(struct video_i2c_data *data, char *buf)
> > > >
> > > > static int mlx90640_xfer(struct video_i2c_data *data, char *buf)
> > > > {
> > > > - return regmap_bulk_read(data->regmap, 0x400, buf,
> > > > - data->chip->buffer_size);
> > > > + int ret = regmap_bulk_read(data->regmap, 0x400, buf,
> > > > + data->chip->buffer_size - 64);
> > > > + if (ret)
> > > > + return ret;
> > > > + return regmap_bulk_read(data->regmap, 0x8000, buf + (data->chip->buffer_size - 64),
> > > > + 64);
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > static int amg88xx_setup(struct video_i2c_data *data)
> > > > @@ -375,7 +380,7 @@ static const struct video_i2c_chip video_i2c_chip[] = {
> > > > .format = &mlx90640_format,
> > > > .frame_intervals = mlx90640_frame_intervals,
> > > > .num_frame_intervals = ARRAY_SIZE(mlx90640_frame_intervals),
> > > > - .buffer_size = 1664,
> > > > + .buffer_size = 1728,
> > >
> > > Minus nitpick above looks good to me. You can keep the acked-by if
> > > that is only change
> > >
> > > Acked-by: Matt Ranostay <matt.ranostay@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > Yes, other than your suggestion, indeed that is the only change I made
> > for this commit between v1 and v2 (and v3 is the same as v2.)
> > and that is because of the checkpatch.pl indeed :)
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Seongyong Park
>
> Re-sending this mail mainly because I have made a direct reply, rather
> than a reply to all.
> Sorry about that.
>
> Matt, while we're at it, if I happen to make another revision of this patchset,
> would you find it looking okay to make a line break after the second parameter?
> The odd arrangement was partly because I wanted to make a line break
> after the same number of parameters.
>
> The lines will look like this:
> + int ret = regmap_bulk_read(data->regmap, 0x400,
> + buf, data->chip->buffer_size - 64);
> ...
> + return regmap_bulk_read(data->regmap, 0x8000,
> + buf + (data->chip->buffer_size - 64), 64);
>
Yeah this is fine by me. Keep the signed off if this is the only change.
- Matt
> Thanks,
> - Seongyong Park
