On 12/18/2018 12:05 PM, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 04:56:43PM +0100, marek.vasut@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> From: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@xxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Convert the rcar code to devm_thermal_zone_of_sensor_register_params(),
>> no functional change.
>>
>> From: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut+renesas@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: linux-renesas-soc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> To: linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut+renesas@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> V2: No change
>> V3: - Work around the From line and SoB line checkpatch warning
>> - Reorder the SoB line at the end
>
> As per v2:
>
> This patch looks good to me, though I'm not sure why { } need
> to be introduced into the 4th hunk.
Because it's a multi-line code , even though it's just a single
line-wrapped function call. I can drop that part, but I think it makes
it visually far more obvious where the conditional block starts/ends and
I recall seeing something about this in kernel coding style too.
[...]
>> @@ -554,16 +554,20 @@ static int rcar_thermal_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> if (ret < 0)
>> goto error_unregister;
>>
>> - if (chip->use_of_thermal)
>> - priv->zone = devm_thermal_zone_of_sensor_register(
>> + if (chip->use_of_thermal) {
>> + priv->zone =
>> + devm_thermal_zone_of_sensor_register_params(
>> dev, i, priv,
>> - &rcar_thermal_zone_of_ops);
>> - else
>> + &rcar_thermal_zone_of_ops,
>> + &rcar_thermal_params);
>> + } else {
>> priv->zone = thermal_zone_device_register(
>> "rcar_thermal",
>> 1, 0, priv,
>> &rcar_thermal_zone_ops, NULL, 0,
>> idle);
>> + }
>> +
>> if (IS_ERR(priv->zone)) {
>> dev_err(dev, "can't register thermal zone\n");
>> ret = PTR_ERR(priv->zone);
[...]
--
Best regards,
Marek Vasut
