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:0.148 / U:2.980 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site