lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Feb]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] iio:potentiostat:lmp91000: solve codestyle WARNINGs and CHECKs
From
Date
Thanks! I'll send those changes in my next patchset.

On 02/02/2019 08:00, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Feb 2019 12:29:11 -0200
> LSO <lucasseikioshiro@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the review!
>>
>> On 29/01/2019 20:48, Joe Perches wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2019-01-29 at 16:36 -0200, Lucas Oshiro wrote:
>>>> Solve most of the checkpatch.pl WARNINGs and CHECKs on lmp9100.c. They
>>>> are the following:
>>>>
>>>> lmp91000.c:116: CHECK: Unnecessary parentheses around 'state != channel'
>>>> lmp91000.c:116: CHECK: Unnecessary parentheses around 'channel == LMP91000_REG_MODECN_TEMP'
>>>> lmp91000.c:214: CHECK: braces {} should be used on all arms of this statement
>>>> lmp91000.c:216: CHECK: Unbalanced braces around else statement
>>>> lmp91000.c:258: WARNING: line over 80 characters
>>>> lmp91000.c:279: CHECK: Please don't use multiple blank lines
>>>
>>> Some will say this is too many things to do at once.
>>> I think it's mostly fine, but there are a few nits
>>> that also could use fixing.
>
> Always a case of personal judgement.
> I agree that this one 'just' falls on the side of not too many things for one
> patch. If there had been a few more items then it would have been too much.
>
> I would also have been happy with it broken out. If I had been spinning
> it myself, I would have done it as 3 patches in pairs from your list
> above with the last one grouping the white space changes.
>
> The test inversion below is also stretching beyond simple style
> so probably should be broken out.
>
>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/iio/potentiostat/lmp91000.c b/drivers/iio/potentiostat/lmp91000.c
>>> []
>>>> @@ -211,9 +211,9 @@ static int lmp91000_read_config(struct lmp91000_data *data)
>>>>
>>>> ret = of_property_read_u32(np, "ti,tia-gain-ohm", &val);
>>>> if (ret) {
>>>> - if (of_property_read_bool(np, "ti,external-tia-resistor"))
>>>> + if (of_property_read_bool(np, "ti,external-tia-resistor")) {
>>>> val = 0;
>>>> - else {
>>>> + } else {
>>>> dev_err(dev, "no ti,tia-gain-ohm defined");
>>>> return ret;
>>>> }
>>>
>>> This could use inverting the test
>>>
>>> if (ret) {
>>> if (!of_property_read_bool(...)) {
>>> dev_err(dev, "no ti,ti-gain-ohm defined\n");
>>> return ret;
>>> }
>>> val = 0;
>>> }
>>>
>> Thanks for the suggestion, I'll do that in the next version.
>>
>>> Also the dev_err is missing a '\n' termination
>>
>> My aim in this patch was only solve style problems, but I
>> can put that missing '\n' too. Do you think it could be done
>> in the same commit or it's a better idea do it in another
>> commit and send both as a patchset?
>
> Separate commit given as you say it's not style and this one has
> enough different things in it already!
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jonathan
>
>>>
>>>
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-02-10 01:05    [W:0.081 / U:4.628 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site