Hi Andy,
On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 07:05:50PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 03:53:50PM +0200, Sakari Ailus wrote:
>
> > Porting a patch
> > forward should have no issues either as checkpatch.pl has been complaining
> > of the use of %pf and %pF for a while now.
>
> And that's exactly the reason why I think instead of removing warning on
> checkpatch, it makes sense to convert to an error for a while. People are
> tending read documentation on internet and thus might have outdated one. And
> yes, the compiler doesn't tell a thing about it.
>
> P.S. Though, if majority of people will tell that I'm wrong, then it's okay to
> remove.
I wonder if you wrote this before seeing my other patchset.
For others as the background, it adds %pfw to print fwnode node names.
Assuming this would be merged, %pfw could be in use relatively soon. With
the current patchset, %pf prints nothing just as %pO ("F" missing).
What I think could be done is to warn of plain %pf (without following "w")
in checkpatch.pl, and %pf that is not followed by "w" in the kernel.
Although we didn't have such checks to begin with. The case is still a
little bit different as %pf used to be a valid conversion specifier whereas
%pO likely has never existed.
So, how about adding such checks in the other set? I can retain %p[fF] check
here, too, if you like.
--
Kind regards,
Sakari Ailus
sakari.ailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
