From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753448AbbCWUw1 (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Mar 2015 16:52:27 -0400 Received: from smtprelay0083.hostedemail.com ([216.40.44.83]:59759 "EHLO smtprelay.hostedemail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752221AbbCWUwT (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Mar 2015 16:52:19 -0400 X-Session-Marker: 6A6F6540706572636865732E636F6D X-Spam-Summary: 2,0,0,,d41d8cd98f00b204,joe@perches.com,:::,RULES_HIT:41:355:379:541:599:960:988:989:1260:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1359:1373:1437:1515:1516:1518:1534:1539:1593:1594:1711:1730:1747:1777:1792:2393:2559:2562:2828:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3352:3622:3865:3866:3867:3874:4250:4321:5007:6261:10004:10400:10848:11026:11232:11473:11658:11914:12296:12517:12519:12740:13069:13311:13357:13972:21080,0,RBL:none,CacheIP:none,Bayesian:0.5,0.5,0.5,Netcheck:none,DomainCache:0,MSF:not bulk,SPF:fn,MSBL:0,DNSBL:none,Custom_rules:0:0:0 X-HE-Tag: back88_8864aef81d80a X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 1555 Message-ID: <1427143934.16851.46.camel@perches.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Dma: at_hdmac_regs fixed a space coding style issue From: Joe Perches To: Andrei Maresu Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 13:52:14 -0700 In-Reply-To: <1427143021-5140-1-git-send-email-andreimaresu@gmail.com> References: <1427143021-5140-1-git-send-email-andreimaresu@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.10-0ubuntu1~14.10.1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2015-03-23 at 22:37 +0200, Andrei Maresu wrote: > The following chaeckpatch error was fixed: > ERROR: space prohibited after that open parenthesis '(' [] > diff --git a/drivers/dma/at_hdmac_regs.h b/drivers/dma/at_hdmac_regs.h [] > @@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ > > #define AT_DMA_CHER 0x28 /* Channel Handler Enable Register */ > #define AT_DMA_ENA(x) (0x1 << (x)) > -#define AT_DMA_SUSP(x) (0x1 << ( 8 + (x))) > +#define AT_DMA_SUSP(x) (0x1 << (8 + (x))) > #define AT_DMA_KEEP(x) (0x1 << (24 + (x))) Meh. I think this isn't much of an improvement. This was likely done to align these AT_ defines. Another option might be to use the BIT macro. #define AT_DMA_SUSP(x) BIT((x) + 8) #define AT_DMA_KEEP(x) BIT((x) + 24)