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: <20190314111313.GB8034@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 14 Mar 2019 12:13:15 +0100
From:   Armando Miraglia <arma2ff0@...il.com>
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc:     neil@...wn.name, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org, sankalpnegi2310@...il.com,
        matthias.bgg@...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

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 <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.
> 
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?

Thanks for the help and the review!
Cheers,
A.