On Thu 31 Mar 21:08 PDT 2022, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 3/31/22 16:48, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> > On Thu 31 Mar 15:34 PDT 2022, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > > #if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEVFREQ_GOV_SIMPLE_ONDEMAND)
> > > static void ufs_qcom_config_scaling_param(struct ufs_hba *hba,
> > > - struct devfreq_dev_profile *p,
> > > - void *data)
> > > + struct devfreq_dev_profile *p,
> > > + struct devfreq_simple_ondemand_data *d)
> >
> > This doesn't look to be properly indended to match the '('?
> > What does ./scripts/checkpatch.pl --strict say about the patch?
> >
> >
> > Other than that, the change looks good, so feel free to add my r-b once
> > you've double checked the indentation.
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Checkpatch doesn't verify this kind of indentation as far as I know.
I was expecting to get the "Alignment should match open parenthesis",
but apparently this case doesn't trigger that check, for some reason...
> Anyway, I will fix up the indentation when I repost this patch.
Cool, thanks!
PS. This patch is quite trivial and could definitely be merged
independent of the big shuffling later in the series.
If you send such patches on their own, or at least early in the series
its possible for the maintainer to pick it up while you continue to
iterate the more complex things at the end - and hence you won't
continue to respin 29 patches.
> Thanks for having taken a look.
>
You're welcome,
Bjorn
