lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Mar]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] spi: mediatek: Attempt to address style issues in spi-mt7621.c
    From
    Date
    Hi Armando,

    On 14.03.19 12:13, Armando Miraglia wrote:
    > My answers are in-line below. BTW bare with me as this is my attempt to get my
    > feet wet in how to contribute to the linux kernel for my own pleasure and
    > interest :)
    >
    > On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 03:34:54PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
    >> On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 01:24:04PM +0100, Armando Miraglia wrote:
    >>> Running Lindent on the mt7621-spi.c file in drivers/staging I noticed that the
    >>> file contained style issues. This change attempts to address such style
    >>> problems.
    >>>
    >>
    >> Don't run lindent. I think checkpatch.pl has a --fix option that might
    >> be better, but once the code is merged then our standard become much
    >> higher for follow up patches.
    >>
    >>> Signed-off-by: Armando Miraglia <armax@google.com>
    >>> ---
    >>> NOTE: resend this patch to include all mainteners listed by get_mantainers.pl.
    >>> drivers/staging/mt7621-spi/spi-mt7621.c | 27 +++++++++++++------------
    >>> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
    >>>
    >>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/mt7621-spi/spi-mt7621.c b/drivers/staging/mt7621-spi/spi-mt7621.c
    >>> index b509f9fe3346..03d53845f8c5 100644
    >>> --- a/drivers/staging/mt7621-spi/spi-mt7621.c
    >>> +++ b/drivers/staging/mt7621-spi/spi-mt7621.c
    >>> @@ -52,14 +52,14 @@
    >>> #define MT7621_LSB_FIRST BIT(3)
    >>>
    >>> struct mt7621_spi {
    >>> - struct spi_master *master;
    >>> - void __iomem *base;
    >>> - unsigned int sys_freq;
    >>> - unsigned int speed;
    >>> - struct clk *clk;
    >>> - int pending_write;
    >>> -
    >>> - struct mt7621_spi_ops *ops;
    >>> + struct spi_master *master;
    >>> + void __iomem *base;
    >>> + unsigned int sys_freq;
    >>> + unsigned int speed;
    >>> + struct clk *clk;
    >>> + int pending_write;
    >>> +
    >>> + struct mt7621_spi_ops *ops;
    >>
    >> The original is fine. I don't encourage people to do fancy indenting
    >> with their local variable declarations inside functions but for a struct
    >> the declarations aren't going to change a lot so people can get fancy
    >> if they want.
    >>
    > Is there an explicit intent to deprecate Lindent in favor of checkpatch.pl
    > --fix? If one would like to contribute to fixing the tooling for linting which
    > of the two would be the right target for such an effort?
    >
    >> The problem with a local is if you need to add a new variable then you
    >> have to re-indent a bunch of unrelated lines or have one out of
    >> alignment line. Most people know this intuitively so they don't get
    >> fancy.
    >>
    >>> };
    >>>
    >>> static inline struct mt7621_spi *spidev_to_mt7621_spi(struct spi_device *spi)
    >>> @@ -303,7 +303,7 @@ static int mt7621_spi_setup(struct spi_device *spi)
    >>> struct mt7621_spi *rs = spidev_to_mt7621_spi(spi);
    >>>
    >>> if ((spi->max_speed_hz == 0) ||
    >>> - (spi->max_speed_hz > (rs->sys_freq / 2)))
    >>> + (spi->max_speed_hz > (rs->sys_freq / 2)))
    >>
    >> Yeah. Lindent is correct here.
    >
    > Funny enough, this is something I adjusted manually :)
    >
    >>> spi->max_speed_hz = (rs->sys_freq / 2);
    >>>
    >>> if (spi->max_speed_hz < (rs->sys_freq / 4097)) {
    >>> @@ -316,9 +316,10 @@ static int mt7621_spi_setup(struct spi_device *spi)
    >>> }
    >>>
    >>> static const struct of_device_id mt7621_spi_match[] = {
    >>> - { .compatible = "ralink,mt7621-spi" },
    >>> + {.compatible = "ralink,mt7621-spi"},
    >>
    >> The original was better.
    >>
    >>> {},
    >>> };
    >>> +
    >>> MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, mt7621_spi_match);
    >>
    >> No need for a blank. These are closely related.
    >
    > Ack.
    >
    >>>
    >>> static int mt7621_spi_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
    >>> @@ -408,9 +409,9 @@ MODULE_ALIAS("platform:" DRIVER_NAME);
    >>>
    >>> static struct platform_driver mt7621_spi_driver = {
    >>> .driver = {
    >>> - .name = DRIVER_NAME,
    >>> - .of_match_table = mt7621_spi_match,
    >>> - },
    >>> + .name = DRIVER_NAME,
    >>> + .of_match_table = mt7621_spi_match,
    >>> + },
    >>
    >> The new indenting is very wrong.
    >
    > Ack. In fact, I was thinking this could be one target to fix the logic in
    > Lindent to do this appropriately.
    >
    > I have a process question here: to post a change for the only accepted change I
    > have in this patch should I send out a new patch?

    Would it be possible for you to wait a bit with this minor cleanup?
    As I'm preparing a patch to move this driver out of staging right
    now. You can definitely follow-up with your cleanup, once this move
    is done. Otherwise the move might be delayed even more.

    Thanks,
    Stefan

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2019-03-14 12:37    [W:5.971 / U:0.360 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site