On 06/02/2024 06:05, Bhavin Sharma wrote:
> Hi Hans,
>
>> Hi Bhavin,
>
>> On 02/01/2024 15:27, Bhavin Sharma wrote:
>>> WARNING: Missing a blank line after declarations
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Bhavin Sharma <bhavin.sharma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/media/i2c/adv7180.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++++---------
>>> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/adv7180.c b/drivers/media/i2c/adv7180.c
>>> index 54134473186b..0023a546b3c9 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/media/i2c/adv7180.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/media/i2c/adv7180.c
>>> @@ -335,8 +335,9 @@ static u32 adv7180_status_to_v4l2(u8 status1)
>>> static int __adv7180_status(struct adv7180_state *state, u32 *status,
>>> v4l2_std_id *std)
>>> {
>>> - int status1 = adv7180_read(state, ADV7180_REG_STATUS1);
>>> + int status1;
>>>
>>> + status1 = adv7180_read(state, ADV7180_REG_STATUS1);
>>> if (status1 < 0)
>>> return status1;
>>>
>>> @@ -356,7 +357,9 @@ static inline struct adv7180_state *to_state(struct v4l2_subdev *sd)
>>> static int adv7180_querystd(struct v4l2_subdev *sd, v4l2_std_id *std)
>>> {
>>> struct adv7180_state *state = to_state(sd);
>>> - int err = mutex_lock_interruptible(&state->mutex);
>>> + int err;
>>> +
>>> + err = mutex_lock_interruptible(&state->mutex);
>
>> The problem here is the missing empty line, not that 'int err = <something>;' part.
>> So just add the empty line and don't split up the variable assignment.
>
> Yes, the error is of missing empty line and I only resolved that particular error in the first version
> of this patch.
>
> But I was recommended to keep the conditional statement close to the line it is associated with
> and to make changes in the code wherever similar format is followed.
>
> So I followed the advise of Kieran Bingham and made changes accordingly.
>
> Below is the link of the full discussion : https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/MAZPR01MB695752E4ADB0110443EA695CF2432@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/T/
Kieran said this:
>> @@ -357,6 +357,7 @@ static int adv7180_querystd(struct v4l2_subdev *sd, v4l2_std_id *std)
>> {
>> struct adv7180_state *state = to_state(sd);
>
> Personally, I would keep the if (err) hugging the line it's associated
> with.
>
>
>> int err = mutex_lock_interruptible(&state->mutex);
>> +
>> if (err)
>> return err;
>>
which I interpret as saying that he doesn't like adding the extra empty line.
>
>>> if (err)
>>> return err;
>>>
>>> @@ -388,8 +391,9 @@ static int adv7180_s_routing(struct v4l2_subdev *sd, u32 input,
>>> u32 output, u32 config)
>>> {
>>> struct adv7180_state *state = to_state(sd);
>>> - int ret = mutex_lock_interruptible(&state->mutex);
>>> + int ret;
>>>
>>> + ret = mutex_lock_interruptible(&state->mutex);
I don't believe he meant doing this.
In any case, none of this is worth the effort, just leave this driver as-is.
Regards,
Hans
>>> if (ret)
>>> return ret;
>>>
>>> @@ -399,7 +403,6 @@ static int adv7180_s_routing(struct v4l2_subdev *sd, u32 input,
>>> }
>>>
>>> ret = state->chip_info->select_input(state, input);
>>> -
>
>> Why remove this empty line? It has nothing to do with what you are trying
>> to fix.
>
>>> if (ret == 0)
>>> state->input = input;
>>> out:
>>> @@ -410,7 +413,9 @@ static int adv7180_s_routing(struct v4l2_subdev *sd, u32 input,
>>> static int adv7180_g_input_status(struct v4l2_subdev *sd, u32 *status)
>>> {
>>> struct adv7180_state *state = to_state(sd);
>>> - int ret = mutex_lock_interruptible(&state->mutex);
>>> + int ret;
>>> +
>>> + ret = mutex_lock_interruptible(&state->mutex);
>>> if (ret)
>>> return ret;
>>>
>>> @@ -436,8 +441,9 @@ static int adv7180_program_std(struct adv7180_state *state)
>>> static int adv7180_s_std(struct v4l2_subdev *sd, v4l2_std_id std)
>>> {
>>> struct adv7180_state *state = to_state(sd);
>>> - int ret = mutex_lock_interruptible(&state->mutex);
>>> + int ret;
>>>
>>> + ret = mutex_lock_interruptible(&state->mutex);
>>> if (ret)
>>> return ret;
>>>
>>> @@ -466,8 +472,9 @@ static int adv7180_g_std(struct v4l2_subdev *sd, v4l2_std_id *norm)
>>> static int adv7180_g_frame_interval(struct v4l2_subdev *sd,
>>> struct v4l2_subdev_frame_interval *fi)
>>> {
>>> - struct adv7180_state *state = to_state(sd);
>>> + struct adv7180_state *state;
>>>
>>> + state = to_state(sd);
>
>> And I am sure this never produced a cppcheck warning since there is an
>> empty line. If cppcheck DOES produce a warning on this, then it is a
>> useless application.
>
>>> if (state->curr_norm & V4L2_STD_525_60) {
>>> fi->interval.numerator = 1001;
>>> fi->interval.denominator = 30000;
>>> @@ -828,8 +835,9 @@ static int adv7180_get_mbus_config(struct v4l2_subdev *sd,
>>> unsigned int pad,
>>> struct v4l2_mbus_config *cfg)
>>> {
>>> - struct adv7180_state *state = to_state(sd);
>>> + struct adv7180_state *state;
>>>
>>> + state = to_state(sd);
>>> if (state->chip_info->flags & ADV7180_FLAG_MIPI_CSI2) {
>>> cfg->type = V4L2_MBUS_CSI2_DPHY;
>>> cfg->bus.mipi_csi2.num_data_lanes = 1;
>>> @@ -857,8 +865,9 @@ static int adv7180_get_skip_frames(struct v4l2_subdev *sd, u32 *frames)
>>>
>>> static int adv7180_g_pixelaspect(struct v4l2_subdev *sd, struct v4l2_fract *aspect)
>>> {
>>> - struct adv7180_state *state = to_state(sd);
>>> + struct adv7180_state *state;
>>>
>>> + state = to_state(sd);
>>> if (state->curr_norm & V4L2_STD_525_60) {
>>> aspect->numerator = 11;
>>> aspect->denominator = 10;
>
>> Honestly, none of these changes are worth the effort, so I just reject this.
>
> Kindly give your suggestions.
>
> Regards,
> Bhavin Sharma
