[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YWbaHtQpVyrrGm0k@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2021 16:07:42 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Sam Protsenko <semen.protsenko@...aro.org>
Cc: Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com>,
Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki@...sung.com>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...onical.com>,
Mike Tipton <mdtipton@...eaurora.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
linux-clk <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] clk: Add write operation for clk_parent debugfs node
On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 02:35:48PM +0300, Sam Protsenko wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2021 at 21:55, Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 07, 2021 at 09:21:58PM +0300, Sam Protsenko wrote:
...
> > > +#ifdef CLOCK_ALLOW_WRITE_DEBUGFS
> > > + if (core->num_parents > 1)
> > > + debugfs_create_file("clk_parent", 0644, root, core,
> > > + ¤t_parent_rw_fops);
> > > + else
> > > +#endif
> >
> > > + {
> > > + if (core->num_parents > 0)
> > > + debugfs_create_file("clk_parent", 0444, root, core,
> > > + ¤t_parent_fops);
> > > + }
> >
> > Currently there is no need to add the {} along with increased indentation
> > level. I.o.w. the 'else if' is valid in C.
>
> Without those {} we have two bad options:
>
> 1. When putting subsequent 'if' block on the same indentation level
> as 'else': looks ok-ish for my taste (though inconsistent with #ifdef
> code) and checkpatch swears:
>
> WARNING: suspect code indent for conditional statements (8, 8)
> #82: FILE: drivers/clk/clk.c:3334:
> + else
> [...]
> if (core->num_parents > 0)
> 2. When adding 1 additional indentation level for subsequent 'if'
> block: looks plain ugly to me, inconsistent for the case when
> CLOCK_ALLOW_WRITE_DEBUGFS is not defined, but checkpatch is happy
>
> I still think that the way I did that (with curly braces) is better
> one: it's consistent for all cases, looking ok, checkpatch is happy
> too. But isn't it hairsplitting? This particular case is not described
> in kernel coding style doc, so it's about personal preferences.
>
> If it's still important to you -- please provide exact code snippet
> here (with indentations) for what you desire, I'll send v6. But
> frankly I'd rather spend my time on something more useful. This is
> minor patch, and I don't see any maintainers wishing to pull it yet.
I meant
#ifdef CLOCK_ALLOW_WRITE_DEBUGFS
if (core->num_parents > 1)
debugfs_create_file("clk_parent", 0644, root, core,
¤t_parent_rw_fops);
else
#endif
if (core->num_parents > 0)
debugfs_create_file("clk_parent", 0444, root, core,
¤t_parent_fops);
But after looking at the present code, this variant is occurred 5x-10x
times less. So, only nit-picks then (note additional {} along with no
blank line):
#ifdef CLOCK_ALLOW_WRITE_DEBUGFS
if (core->num_parents > 1) {
debugfs_create_file("clk_parent", 0644, root, core,
¤t_parent_rw_fops);
} else
#endif
{
if (core->num_parents > 0)
debugfs_create_file("clk_parent", 0444, root, core,
¤t_parent_fops);
}
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists