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

Thanks for the help and the review!
Cheers,
A.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-03-14 12:13    [W:0.120 / U:5.704 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site