linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] spi: mediatek: Attempt to address style issues in spi-mt7621.c

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]

Message-ID: <c1f98f80-c46a-dd08-f318-bc302daa2865@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 13 Mar 2019 17:47:04 +0100
From:   Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
        Armando Miraglia <arma2ff0@...il.com>
Cc:     neil@...wn.name, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Armando Miraglia <armax@...gle.com>,
        linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org, sankalpnegi2310@...il.com,
        sr@...x.de, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] spi: mediatek: Attempt to address style issues in
 spi-mt7621.c



On 13/03/2019 13:34, 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 <armax@...gle.com>
>> ---
>> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
>>  		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.
> 
>>  
>>  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.
> 

Fair enough, I was too fast providing my Reviewed-by tag :-/