[PATCH] soc: qcom: apr: Fix some parenthesis alignment coding style issues

[PATCH] soc: qcom: apr: Fix some parenthesis alignment coding style issues

[Riyan Dhiman]

Adhere to Linux kernel coding style.

Issue reported by checkpatch:
- CHECK: Alignment should match open parenthesis

It has no functional changes.

Signed-off-by: Riyan Dhiman <riyandhiman14@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/soc/qcom/apr.c | 10 +++++-----
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/soc/qcom/apr.c b/drivers/soc/qcom/apr.c
index 4fbff3a890e2..db1326bdb170 100644
--- a/drivers/soc/qcom/apr.c
+++ b/drivers/soc/qcom/apr.c
@@ -88,7 +88,7 @@ void gpr_free_port(gpr_port_t *port)
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(gpr_free_port);
 
 gpr_port_t *gpr_alloc_port(struct apr_device *gdev, struct device *dev,
-				gpr_port_cb cb,	void *priv)
+			   gpr_port_cb cb, void *priv)
 {
 	struct packet_router *pr = dev_get_drvdata(gdev->dev.parent);
 	gpr_port_t *port;
@@ -159,7 +159,7 @@ static void apr_dev_release(struct device *dev)
 }
 
 static int apr_callback(struct rpmsg_device *rpdev, void *buf,
-				  int len, void *priv, u32 addr)
+			int len, void *priv, u32 addr)
 {
 	struct packet_router *apr = dev_get_drvdata(&rpdev->dev);
 	struct apr_rx_buf *abuf;
@@ -222,9 +222,9 @@ static int apr_do_rx_callback(struct packet_router *apr, struct apr_rx_buf *abuf
 	}
 
 	if (hdr->src_domain >= APR_DOMAIN_MAX ||
-			hdr->dest_domain >= APR_DOMAIN_MAX ||
-			hdr->src_svc >= APR_SVC_MAX ||
-			hdr->dest_svc >= APR_SVC_MAX) {
+	    hdr->dest_domain >= APR_DOMAIN_MAX ||
+	    hdr->src_svc >= APR_SVC_MAX ||
+	    hdr->dest_svc >= APR_SVC_MAX) {
 		dev_err(apr->dev, "APR: Wrong APR header\n");
 		return -EINVAL;
 	}
-- 
2.46.0

Re: [PATCH] soc: qcom: apr: Fix some parenthesis alignment coding style issues

[Johan Hovold]

On Wed, Sep 04, 2024 at 11:17:35AM +0530, Riyan Dhiman wrote:
> Adhere to Linux kernel coding style.
> 
> Issue reported by checkpatch:
> - CHECK: Alignment should match open parenthesis

This is not something that is part of the coding style and just an
excessive warning that that checkpatch issues when run with the
--pedantic (a.k.a. --strict) flag.

You can use that flag on your own code if you prefer, but don't send
"cleanups" like this for code that is already in the kernel. It's just
noise.

If you want to practise on how to create and submit a patch, these kind
of patches are accepted for code under drivers/staging however.

Johan