Erik Stromdahl <erik.stromdahl@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Ok, I'll do another round of checkpatch before I submit anything. > I couldn't find the script you mentioned though (ath10k-check). Did you check the link I gave you: https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/users/drivers/ath10k/codingstyle#checking_code > Is it some kind of checkpatch wrapper? It runs various tests (gcc, sparse, checkpatch), sets some checkpatch settings (like line length) and filters out warnings we don't care about. > Anyway, I have a few warnings related to 'line over 80 chars' that > is really hard to get rid of (without breaking indentation etc.) so > I won't do anything about those for now. > > Then there are some other warnings about the BIT macro being preferred > over (1 << x). I have used (1 << x) in some files despite the checkpatch > warning in order to keep the patches consistent with the existing code. > I think the best approach is to have a separate round of cleanup-patches > replacing all (1 << x) with BIT(x). These are all disabled by ath10k-check. I think it's easiest that you forget ath10k-check for now and let me fix those in the next round. -- Kalle Valo
