[PATCH 1/1] dt: fix some code indent issue in of.h

[PATCH 1/1] dt: fix some code indent issue in of.h

[Dong Aisheng]

From: Dong Aisheng <dong.aisheng@linaro.org>

Checkpatch script will report some warnings for the old coding style:
WARNING: suspect code indent for conditional statements (8, 0)
        for (child = of_get_next_child(parent, NULL); child != NULL; \
[...]
+static inline int of_get_child_count(const struct device_node *np)

Signed-off-by: Dong Aisheng <dong.aisheng@linaro.org>
Cc: Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>
Cc: Rob Herring <rob.herring@calxeda.com>
---
 include/linux/of.h |   12 ++++++------
 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/of.h b/include/linux/of.h
index f1a490c..95dee0a 100644
--- a/include/linux/of.h
+++ b/include/linux/of.h
@@ -163,22 +163,22 @@ extern struct device_node *of_find_node_by_name(struct device_node *from,
 	const char *name);
 #define for_each_node_by_name(dn, name) \
 	for (dn = of_find_node_by_name(NULL, name); dn; \
-	     dn = of_find_node_by_name(dn, name))
+		dn = of_find_node_by_name(dn, name))
 extern struct device_node *of_find_node_by_type(struct device_node *from,
 	const char *type);
 #define for_each_node_by_type(dn, type) \
 	for (dn = of_find_node_by_type(NULL, type); dn; \
-	     dn = of_find_node_by_type(dn, type))
+		dn = of_find_node_by_type(dn, type))
 extern struct device_node *of_find_compatible_node(struct device_node *from,
 	const char *type, const char *compat);
 #define for_each_compatible_node(dn, type, compatible) \
 	for (dn = of_find_compatible_node(NULL, type, compatible); dn; \
-	     dn = of_find_compatible_node(dn, type, compatible))
+		dn = of_find_compatible_node(dn, type, compatible))
 extern struct device_node *of_find_matching_node(struct device_node *from,
 	const struct of_device_id *matches);
 #define for_each_matching_node(dn, matches) \
 	for (dn = of_find_matching_node(NULL, matches); dn; \
-	     dn = of_find_matching_node(dn, matches))
+		dn = of_find_matching_node(dn, matches))
 extern struct device_node *of_find_node_by_path(const char *path);
 extern struct device_node *of_find_node_by_phandle(phandle handle);
 extern struct device_node *of_get_parent(const struct device_node *node);
@@ -187,13 +187,13 @@ extern struct device_node *of_get_next_child(const struct device_node *node,
 					     struct device_node *prev);
 #define for_each_child_of_node(parent, child) \
 	for (child = of_get_next_child(parent, NULL); child != NULL; \
-	     child = of_get_next_child(parent, child))
+		child = of_get_next_child(parent, child))
 
 extern struct device_node *of_find_node_with_property(
 	struct device_node *from, const char *prop_name);
 #define for_each_node_with_property(dn, prop_name) \
 	for (dn = of_find_node_with_property(NULL, prop_name); dn; \
-	     dn = of_find_node_with_property(dn, prop_name))
+		dn = of_find_node_with_property(dn, prop_name))
 
 extern struct property *of_find_property(const struct device_node *np,
 					 const char *name,
-- 
1.7.0.4

Re: [PATCH 1/1] dt: fix some code indent issue in of.h

[Rob Herring]

On 12/20/2011 12:10 PM, Dong Aisheng wrote:
> From: Dong Aisheng <dong.aisheng-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
> 
> Checkpatch script will report some warnings for the old coding style:
> WARNING: suspect code indent for conditional statements (8, 0)
>         for (child = of_get_next_child(parent, NULL); child != NULL; \
> [...]
> +static inline int of_get_child_count(const struct device_node *np)
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dong Aisheng <dong.aisheng-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
> Cc: Grant Likely <grant.likely-s3s/WqlpOiPyB63q8FvJNQ@public.gmane.org>
> Cc: Rob Herring <rob.herring-bsGFqQB8/DxBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org>
> ---
>  include/linux/of.h |   12 ++++++------
>  1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/of.h b/include/linux/of.h
> index f1a490c..95dee0a 100644
> --- a/include/linux/of.h
> +++ b/include/linux/of.h
> @@ -163,22 +163,22 @@ extern struct device_node *of_find_node_by_name(struct device_node *from,
>  	const char *name);
>  #define for_each_node_by_name(dn, name) \
>  	for (dn = of_find_node_by_name(NULL, name); dn; \
> -	     dn = of_find_node_by_name(dn, name))
> +		dn = of_find_node_by_name(dn, name))
>  extern struct device_node *of_find_node_by_type(struct device_node *from,
>  	const char *type);
>  #define for_each_node_by_type(dn, type) \
>  	for (dn = of_find_node_by_type(NULL, type); dn; \
> -	     dn = of_find_node_by_type(dn, type))
> +		dn = of_find_node_by_type(dn, type))
>  extern struct device_node *of_find_compatible_node(struct device_node *from,
>  	const char *type, const char *compat);
>  #define for_each_compatible_node(dn, type, compatible) \
>  	for (dn = of_find_compatible_node(NULL, type, compatible); dn; \
> -	     dn = of_find_compatible_node(dn, type, compatible))
> +		dn = of_find_compatible_node(dn, type, compatible))
>  extern struct device_node *of_find_matching_node(struct device_node *from,
>  	const struct of_device_id *matches);
>  #define for_each_matching_node(dn, matches) \
>  	for (dn = of_find_matching_node(NULL, matches); dn; \
> -	     dn = of_find_matching_node(dn, matches))
> +		dn = of_find_matching_node(dn, matches))
>  extern struct device_node *of_find_node_by_path(const char *path);
>  extern struct device_node *of_find_node_by_phandle(phandle handle);
>  extern struct device_node *of_get_parent(const struct device_node *node);
> @@ -187,13 +187,13 @@ extern struct device_node *of_get_next_child(const struct device_node *node,
>  					     struct device_node *prev);
>  #define for_each_child_of_node(parent, child) \
>  	for (child = of_get_next_child(parent, NULL); child != NULL; \
> -	     child = of_get_next_child(parent, child))
> +		child = of_get_next_child(parent, child))
>  
>  extern struct device_node *of_find_node_with_property(
>  	struct device_node *from, const char *prop_name);
>  #define for_each_node_with_property(dn, prop_name) \
>  	for (dn = of_find_node_with_property(NULL, prop_name); dn; \
> -	     dn = of_find_node_with_property(dn, prop_name))
> +		dn = of_find_node_with_property(dn, prop_name))
>  
>  extern struct property *of_find_property(const struct device_node *np,
>  					 const char *name,

The old way looks fine to me and indenting like this is commonly used in
the kernel.

Rob

RE: [PATCH 1/1] dt: fix some code indent issue in of.h

[Dong Aisheng-B29396]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Herring [mailto:robherring2@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 2:42 AM
> To: Dong Aisheng-B29396
> Cc: devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-
> arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; grant.likely@secretlab.ca; Guo Shawn-R65073
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] dt: fix some code indent issue in of.h
> Importance: High
> 
> On 12/20/2011 12:10 PM, Dong Aisheng wrote:
> > From: Dong Aisheng <dong.aisheng@linaro.org>
> >
> > Checkpatch script will report some warnings for the old coding style:
> > WARNING: suspect code indent for conditional statements (8, 0)
> >         for (child = of_get_next_child(parent, NULL); child != NULL; \
> > [...]
> > +static inline int of_get_child_count(const struct device_node *np)
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dong Aisheng <dong.aisheng@linaro.org>
> > Cc: Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>
> > Cc: Rob Herring <rob.herring@calxeda.com>
> > ---
> >  include/linux/of.h |   12 ++++++------
> >  1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/of.h b/include/linux/of.h index
> > f1a490c..95dee0a 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/of.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/of.h
> > @@ -163,22 +163,22 @@ extern struct device_node *of_find_node_by_name(struct
> device_node *from,
> >  	const char *name);
> >  #define for_each_node_by_name(dn, name) \
> >  	for (dn = of_find_node_by_name(NULL, name); dn; \
> > -	     dn = of_find_node_by_name(dn, name))
> > +		dn = of_find_node_by_name(dn, name))
> >  extern struct device_node *of_find_node_by_type(struct device_node *from,
> >  	const char *type);
> >  #define for_each_node_by_type(dn, type) \
> >  	for (dn = of_find_node_by_type(NULL, type); dn; \
> > -	     dn = of_find_node_by_type(dn, type))
> > +		dn = of_find_node_by_type(dn, type))
> >  extern struct device_node *of_find_compatible_node(struct device_node *from,
> >  	const char *type, const char *compat);  #define
> > for_each_compatible_node(dn, type, compatible) \
> >  	for (dn = of_find_compatible_node(NULL, type, compatible); dn; \
> > -	     dn = of_find_compatible_node(dn, type, compatible))
> > +		dn = of_find_compatible_node(dn, type, compatible))
> >  extern struct device_node *of_find_matching_node(struct device_node *from,
> >  	const struct of_device_id *matches);  #define
> > for_each_matching_node(dn, matches) \
> >  	for (dn = of_find_matching_node(NULL, matches); dn; \
> > -	     dn = of_find_matching_node(dn, matches))
> > +		dn = of_find_matching_node(dn, matches))
> >  extern struct device_node *of_find_node_by_path(const char *path);
> > extern struct device_node *of_find_node_by_phandle(phandle handle);
> > extern struct device_node *of_get_parent(const struct device_node
> > *node); @@ -187,13 +187,13 @@ extern struct device_node
> *of_get_next_child(const struct device_node *node,
> >  					     struct device_node *prev);
> >  #define for_each_child_of_node(parent, child) \
> >  	for (child = of_get_next_child(parent, NULL); child != NULL; \
> > -	     child = of_get_next_child(parent, child))
> > +		child = of_get_next_child(parent, child))
> >
> >  extern struct device_node *of_find_node_with_property(
> >  	struct device_node *from, const char *prop_name);  #define
> > for_each_node_with_property(dn, prop_name) \
> >  	for (dn = of_find_node_with_property(NULL, prop_name); dn; \
> > -	     dn = of_find_node_with_property(dn, prop_name))
> > +		dn = of_find_node_with_property(dn, prop_name))
> >
> >  extern struct property *of_find_property(const struct device_node *np,
> >  					 const char *name,
> 
> The old way looks fine to me and indenting like this is commonly used in the
> kernel.
> 
Yes, i was also ok without those annoying warning.
Do you think if we need to fix the checkpatch.pl if the it is commonly used
In the kernel?

Regards
Dong Aisheng

RE: [PATCH 1/1] dt: fix some code indent issue in of.h

[Joe Perches]

On Wed, 2011-12-21 at 02:57 +0000, Dong Aisheng-B29396 wrote:
> > On 12/20/2011 12:10 PM, Dong Aisheng wrote:
> > > From: Dong Aisheng <dong.aisheng@linaro.org>
> > > Checkpatch script will report some warnings for the old coding style:
> > > WARNING: suspect code indent for conditional statements (8, 0)
> > >         for (child = of_get_next_child(parent, NULL); child != NULL; \
> > > [...]
[]
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/of.h b/include/linux/of.h index
[]
> > > @@ -163,22 +163,22 @@ extern struct device_node *of_find_node_by_name(struct
> > device_node *from,
> > >  	const char *name);
> > >  #define for_each_node_by_name(dn, name) \
> > >  	for (dn = of_find_node_by_name(NULL, name); dn; \
> > > -	     dn = of_find_node_by_name(dn, name))
> > > +		dn = of_find_node_by_name(dn, name))
> > The old way looks fine to me and indenting like this is commonly used in the
> > kernel.
> Yes, i was also ok without those annoying warning.
> Do you think if we need to fix the checkpatch.pl if the it is commonly used
> In the kernel?

I don't.  I think it's better for people to realize that
checkpatch is and will always be an imperfect tool and
that they should learn to ignore inappropriate warnings.

Re: [PATCH 1/1] dt: fix some code indent issue in of.h

[Andy Whitcroft]

On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 07:06:22PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-12-21 at 02:57 +0000, Dong Aisheng-B29396 wrote:
> > > On 12/20/2011 12:10 PM, Dong Aisheng wrote:
> > > > From: Dong Aisheng <dong.aisheng@linaro.org>
> > > > Checkpatch script will report some warnings for the old coding style:
> > > > WARNING: suspect code indent for conditional statements (8, 0)
> > > >         for (child = of_get_next_child(parent, NULL); child != NULL; \
> > > > [...]
> []
> > > > diff --git a/include/linux/of.h b/include/linux/of.h index
> []
> > > > @@ -163,22 +163,22 @@ extern struct device_node *of_find_node_by_name(struct
> > > device_node *from,
> > > >  	const char *name);
> > > >  #define for_each_node_by_name(dn, name) \
> > > >  	for (dn = of_find_node_by_name(NULL, name); dn; \
> > > > -	     dn = of_find_node_by_name(dn, name))
> > > > +		dn = of_find_node_by_name(dn, name))
> > > The old way looks fine to me and indenting like this is commonly used in the
> > > kernel.
> > Yes, i was also ok without those annoying warning.
> > Do you think if we need to fix the checkpatch.pl if the it is commonly used
> > In the kernel?
> 
> I don't.  I think it's better for people to realize that
> checkpatch is and will always be an imperfect tool and
> that they should learn to ignore inappropriate warnings.

Right.  Checkpatch is simply a helper, if you have checkpatch warnings
in a patch you are submitting then you need to be able to mentally
justify them.  It is there to catch the basic stuff that wastes so much
of the reviewers time and to help you get your patches accepted quicker.
It is not a substitute for your own common sense.

-apw