From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E09BC43381 for ; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 11:36:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78837217F5 for ; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 11:36:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727515AbfCNLgh (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Mar 2019 07:36:37 -0400 Received: from mx2.mailbox.org ([80.241.60.215]:30684 "EHLO mx2.mailbox.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726501AbfCNLgg (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Mar 2019 07:36:36 -0400 Received: from smtp2.mailbox.org (smtp2.mailbox.org [IPv6:2001:67c:2050:105:465:1:2:0]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx2.mailbox.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9CCABA115A; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 12:36:33 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at heinlein-support.de Received: from smtp2.mailbox.org ([80.241.60.241]) by hefe.heinlein-support.de (hefe.heinlein-support.de [91.198.250.172]) (amavisd-new, port 10030) with ESMTP id Ji9ZmOE6jxwu; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 12:36:27 +0100 (CET) Subject: Re: [PATCH] spi: mediatek: Attempt to address style issues in spi-mt7621.c To: Armando Miraglia , Dan Carpenter Cc: neil@brown.name, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org, sankalpnegi2310@gmail.com, matthias.bgg@gmail.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org References: <20190313122403.248873-1-armax@google.com> <20190313123454.GB2202@kadam> <20190314111313.GB8034@google.com> From: Stefan Roese Message-ID: Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 12:36:26 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190314111313.GB8034@google.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 >>> --- >>> 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