linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 5/5] i2c: designware: Cleaning comments and formatation

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 13 Dec 2016 17:08:06 +0200
From:   Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Luis Oliveira <Luis.Oliveira@...opsys.com>, wsa@...-dreams.de,
        robh+dt@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com,
        andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com, mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com,
        linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Ramiro.Oliveira@...opsys.com, Joao.Pinto@...opsys.com,
        CARLOS.PALMINHA@...opsys.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 5/5] i2c: designware: Cleaning comments and formatation

On 12/07/2016 07:55 PM, Luis Oliveira wrote:
> - Missspelling, comment formatation and fix a string of
>   the existing code
>
> Signed-off-by: Luis Oliveira <lolivei@...opsys.com>
> ---
> Changes V3->V4: (Andy Shevchenko)
> - created a commit message
>
>  drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-common.c |  2 +-
>  drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-slave.c  | 10 ++++++----
>  2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-common.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-common.c
> index 41b38d8b8732..838ef662d2c8 100644
> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-common.c
> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-common.c
> @@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ static char *abort_sources[] = {
>  	[ABRT_TXDATA_NOACK] =
>  		"data not acknowledged",
>  	[ABRT_GCALL_NOACK] =
> -		"no acknowledgement for a general call",
> +		"no acknowledgment for a general call",

I'm not a native speaker but are both acknowledgement and acknowledgment 
ok? I.e. is there need to change?

> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-slave.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-slave.c
> index 1c7f82bb2513..442bc5ce6d47 100644
> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-slave.c
> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-slave.c
> @@ -70,8 +70,8 @@ int i2c_dw_init_slave(struct dw_i2c_dev *dev)
>  		/* Configure register access mode 16bit */
>  		dev->accessor_flags |= ACCESS_16BIT;
>  	} else if (reg != DW_IC_COMP_TYPE_VALUE) {
> -		dev_err(dev->dev, "Unknown Synopsys component type: "
> -			"0x%08x\n", reg);
> +		dev_err(dev->dev,
> +		 "Unknown Synopsys component type: 0x%08x\n", reg);
>  		i2c_dw_release_lock(dev);
>  		return -ENODEV;
>  	}
> @@ -181,8 +181,10 @@ int i2c_dw_reg_slave(struct i2c_client *slave)
>  		return -EBUSY;
>  	if (slave->flags & I2C_CLIENT_TEN)
>  		return -EAFNOSUPPORT;
> -		/* set slave address in the IC_SAR register,
> -		* the address to which the DW_apb_i2c responds */
> +		/*
> +		 * set slave address in the IC_SAR register,
> +		 * the address to which the DW_apb_i2c responds
> +		 */

These two should be done already in the patch 4/5 since it introduced 
the lines that you are changing here.

-- 
Jarkko