Re: [PATCH 2/4] spi: imx: checkpatch cleanup

[Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>]

On Thu, 2015-02-12 at 14:03 +0100, aurélien bouin wrote:
> Hello,

Rehi

> It does not change readability ... Often breaks are in functions parameters ...

[please don't top post, more below]

> > > diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-imx.c b/drivers/spi/spi-imx.c
> > []
> > > @@ -282,7 +282,8 @@ static unsigned int mx51_ecspi_clkdiv(unsigned int fin, unsigned int fspi,
[]
> > > -static void __maybe_unused mx51_ecspi_intctrl(struct spi_imx_data *spi_imx, int enable)
> > > +static void __maybe_unused mx51_ecspi_intctrl(struct spi_imx_data *spi_imx,
> > > +             int enable)
> > Perhaps it'd be better to use this style:
> > __maybe_unused
> > static void foo(...)
> > ie:
> > __maybe_unused
> > static void mx51_ecspi_intctrl(struct spi_imx_data *spi_imx, int enable)

It's not the break in the function parameters that
matters much, it's the more difficult mechanism to
find the function itself.

typical is:

[static] [const] <type> <function>(params...)

inserting <attribute> between <type> and <function>
breaks that pattern and can make it harder for
less comprehensive code parsers to identify the
function names.