[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a690ecc9169f0594e22b4eae0a056d89@kernel.org>
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2020 19:35:56 +0000
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
To: Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@...il.com>
Cc: Anson Huang <Anson.Huang@....com>, tglx@...utronix.de,
jason@...edaemon.net, Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
dl-linux-imx <Linux-imx@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] irqchip: irq-imx-gpcv2: Remove unnecessary blank lines
Daniel,
On 2020-03-22 19:08, Daniel Baluta wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 5:22 PM Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 17 Mar 2020 04:56:41 +0000,
>> Anson Huang <Anson.Huang@....com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Remove unnecessary blank lines for cleanup.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Anson Huang <Anson.Huang@....com>
>> > ---
>> > drivers/irqchip/irq-imx-gpcv2.c | 2 --
>> > 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-imx-gpcv2.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-imx-gpcv2.c
>> > index 4f74c15..4f11b9b 100644
>> > --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-imx-gpcv2.c
>> > +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-imx-gpcv2.c
>> > @@ -17,7 +17,6 @@
>> > #define GPC_IMR1_CORE2 0x1c0
>> > #define GPC_IMR1_CORE3 0x1d0
>> >
>> > -
>> > struct gpcv2_irqchip_data {
>> > struct raw_spinlock rlock;
>> > void __iomem *gpc_base;
>> > @@ -287,6 +286,5 @@ static int __init imx_gpcv2_irqchip_init(struct device_node *node,
>> > of_node_clear_flag(node, OF_POPULATED);
>> > return 0;
>> > }
>> > -
>> > IRQCHIP_DECLARE(imx_gpcv2_imx7d, "fsl,imx7d-gpc", imx_gpcv2_irqchip_init);
>> > IRQCHIP_DECLARE(imx_gpcv2_imx8mq, "fsl,imx8mq-gpc", imx_gpcv2_irqchip_init);
>>
>> I honestly don't think this deserves a patch. Next time you work on
>> this driver, add the cleanups to it. But on its own, it's only churn.
>
> While you are technically right, it's only churn I think we need this
> for code consistency and cleanup.
Get real. We really don't. Two blank lines do not lead to a
misinterpretation of the code, do not get in the way of normal
maintenance, do not lead to *any* practical issue.
What's next? Cc stable?
> Even if we fix this when we work on the driver we still need
> to make the cleanup in a separate patch.
Neither. As well as removing blank lines, you could also remove the
dead code in this driver. That would be a good cleanup. You could
also have a look at what feels like a potential deadlock in the
mask/unmask callbacks. That'd be a good thing to do too.
Certainly more useful than just dropping two blank lines.
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists