[PATCH v4 01/16] drm: exynos/dp: fix code style

Krzysztof Kozlowski
2015-09-03T05:08:59Z

On 03.09.2015 14:04, Yakir Yang wrote:
> Hi Krzysztof,
>
> ? 09/03/2015 08:21 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski ??:
>> On 01.09.2015 14:46, Yakir Yang wrote:
>>> After run "checkpatch.pl -f --subjective" command, I see there
>>> are lots of alignment problem in exynos_dp driver, so let just
>>> fix them.
>> Hi,
>>
>> Warnings from checkpatch are not a reason for a commit. Reason for a
>> commit could be for example an unreadable code, violation of
>> coding-style leading to decrease in code maintainability or just
>> improving the code readability so it will be easier to review and
>> maintain it.
>>
>> You do not make commits because some tool tells you that. We do not
>> listen to machines :) ... If that would be the case, the commit could be
>> made automatically, without human interaction. Such automated commit
>> could be even easily tested by the machine by comparing object files.
>>
>> Especially that you enabled "subjective" rule. This is not a valid
>> motivation for a commit.
>>
>> Please rephrase this to sensible reason and convince that change is
>> worth the effort.
>
> Oh, nice, thanks for your remind. I would rephrase the commit.
>
>>> - Take Romain suggest, rebase on linux-next branch
>> That comment seems unrelated to the commit. Please remove it.
>
> Done,
>
>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Yakir Yang <ykk@rock-chips.com>
>>> ---
>>> Changes in v4: None
>>> Changes in v3: None
>>> Changes in v2:
>>> - Take Joe Preches advise, improved commit message more readable, and
>>> avoid using some uncommon style like bellow:
>>> - retval = exynos_dp_read_bytes_from_i2c(...
>>> ...)
>>> + retval =
>>> + exynos_dp_read_bytes_from_i2c(......);
>>>
>>> drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_dp_core.c | 226
>>> ++++++++++++++++----------------
>>> drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_dp_core.h | 54 ++++----
>>> drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_dp_reg.c | 106 +++++++--------
>>> 3 files changed, 188 insertions(+), 198 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_dp_core.c
>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_dp_core.c
>>> index d66ade0..266f7f7 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_dp_core.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_dp_core.c
>>> @@ -115,8 +115,8 @@ static int exynos_dp_read_edid(struct
>>> exynos_dp_device *dp)
>>> /* Read Extension Flag, Number of 128-byte EDID extension
>>> blocks */
>>> retval = exynos_dp_read_byte_from_i2c(dp, I2C_EDID_DEVICE_ADDR,
>>> - EDID_EXTENSION_FLAG,
>>> - &extend_block);
>>> + EDID_EXTENSION_FLAG,
>>> + &extend_block);
>>> if (retval)
>>> return retval;
>>> @@ -124,10 +124,11 @@ static int exynos_dp_read_edid(struct
>>> exynos_dp_device *dp)
>>> dev_dbg(dp->dev, "EDID data includes a single extension!\n");
>>> /* Read EDID data */
>>> - retval = exynos_dp_read_bytes_from_i2c(dp,
>>> I2C_EDID_DEVICE_ADDR,
>>> - EDID_HEADER_PATTERN,
>>> - EDID_BLOCK_LENGTH,
>>> - &edid[EDID_HEADER_PATTERN]);
>>> + retval = exynos_dp_read_bytes_from_i2c(
>>> + dp, I2C_EDID_DEVICE_ADDR,
>>> + EDID_HEADER_PATTERN,
>>> + EDID_BLOCK_LENGTH,
>>> + &edid[EDID_HEADER_PATTERN]);
>>> if (retval != 0) {
>>> dev_err(dp->dev, "EDID Read failed!\n");
>>> return -EIO;
>>> @@ -139,11 +140,11 @@ static int exynos_dp_read_edid(struct
>>> exynos_dp_device *dp)
>>> }
>>> /* Read additional EDID data */
>>> - retval = exynos_dp_read_bytes_from_i2c(dp,
>>> - I2C_EDID_DEVICE_ADDR,
>>> - EDID_BLOCK_LENGTH,
>>> - EDID_BLOCK_LENGTH,
>>> - &edid[EDID_BLOCK_LENGTH]);
>>> + retval = exynos_dp_read_bytes_from_i2c(
>>> + dp, I2C_EDID_DEVICE_ADDR,
>>> + EDID_BLOCK_LENGTH,
>>> + EDID_BLOCK_LENGTH,
>>> + &edid[EDID_BLOCK_LENGTH]);
>>> if (retval != 0) {
>>> dev_err(dp->dev, "EDID Read failed!\n");
>>> return -EIO;
>>> @@ -155,24 +156,22 @@ static int exynos_dp_read_edid(struct
>>> exynos_dp_device *dp)
>>> }
>>> exynos_dp_read_byte_from_dpcd(dp, DP_TEST_REQUEST,
>>> - &test_vector);
>>> + &test_vector);
>>> if (test_vector & DP_TEST_LINK_EDID_READ) {
>>> - exynos_dp_write_byte_to_dpcd(dp,
>>> - DP_TEST_EDID_CHECKSUM,
>>> + exynos_dp_write_byte_to_dpcd(
>>> + dp, DP_TEST_EDID_CHECKSUM,
>>> edid[EDID_BLOCK_LENGTH + EDID_CHECKSUM]);
>>> - exynos_dp_write_byte_to_dpcd(dp,
>>> - DP_TEST_RESPONSE,
>>> + exynos_dp_write_byte_to_dpcd(
>>> + dp, DP_TEST_RESPONSE,
>>> DP_TEST_EDID_CHECKSUM_WRITE);
>> To me, missing argument after opening parenthesis, looks worse. I would
>> prefer:
>>
>> exynos_dp_write_byte_to_dpcd(dp,
>>
>> Why you moved the 'dp' argument to new line?
>
> Hmm... Just like style tool indicate, no more warning after
> that change.
>
> For now, I would like to follow the original style, just improved
> some obvious style problem. :-)

What was the checkpatch warning that said 'dp' has to move to new line?
I tried this and I don't see it.

Best regards,
Krzysztof