Joe, ? 2015/8/6 23:05, Joe Perches ??: > On Thu, 2015-08-06 at 09:04 -0500, Yakir Yang wrote: >> make checkpatch.pl script happy > That should not be the primary reason to submit a patch. > > Making it easier for human code reader to understand > what the code does should be though. Thanks for your reply, but I do think that fix code style and make checkpatch.pl passed is my primary reason to submit this patch. I can't think out more directly words ;( , >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_dp_core.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_dp_core.c > [] >> @@ -123,10 +123,11 @@ static int exynos_dp_read_edid(struct exynos_dp_device *dp) >> dev_dbg(dp->dev, "EDID data includes a single extension!\n"); >> >> /* Read EDID data */ >> - retval = exynos_dp_read_bytes_from_i2c(dp, I2C_EDID_DEVICE_ADDR, >> - EDID_HEADER_PATTERN, >> - EDID_BLOCK_LENGTH, >> - &edid[EDID_HEADER_PATTERN]); >> + retval = >> + exynos_dp_read_bytes_from_i2c(dp, I2C_EDID_DEVICE_ADDR, >> + EDID_HEADER_PATTERN, >> + EDID_BLOCK_LENGTH, >> + &edid[EDID_HEADER_PATTERN]); > This is a relatively uncommon style. > > Because the code uses relatively long variable and > function names as well as longish macro #defines, > prefer to ignore the 80 column limit. Okay, I think it would be better to modify like those: retval = exynos_dp_read_bytes_from_i2c( dp, I2C_EDID_DEVICE_ADDR, EDID_HEADER_PATTERN, EDID_BLOCK_LENGTH, &edid[EDID_HEADER_PATTERN]); Is it okay ? - Yakir > > > >
