Hi Sekhar,
On 11/27/2013 02:35 PM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
> On Monday 18 November 2013 03:49 AM, Daniel Mack wrote:
>> +static int edma_pm_suspend(struct device *dev)
>> +{
>> + int j, r;
>> +
>> + r = pm_runtime_get_sync(dev);
>> + if (IS_ERR_VALUE(r)) {
>
> So IS_ERR_VALUE() is only for functions which may return a negative
> number outside of MAX_ERRNO as a success indication.
> pm_runtime_get_sync() does not appear to be one of them so just use"
>
> if (r < 0) { .. }
That's true. Thanks for catching this, I'll fix it. However, grepping
through the tree, there are quite a lot places where the same mistake is
made.
>> + /* Map the channel to param entry if channel mapping logic
>> + * exist
>> + */
>
> Please follow the multi-line commenting style.
Can do. However, these lines in fact follow the style that is used
throughout the entire file ;)
> There are some checkpatch checks that result from lines like this.
> Please fix these as well.
>
> CHECK: Alignment should match open parenthesis
> #179: FILE: arch/arm/common/edma.c:1841:
> + map_queue_tc(j, queue_tc_mapping[i][0],
> + queue_tc_mapping[i][1]);
If you say so, even though I disagree with checkpatch.pl here. The above
is actually more readable, right? :)
Thanks,
Daniel
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
