[PATCH 0/3] hwmon: lm93: clean up coding style issues

[PATCH 0/3] hwmon: lm93: clean up coding style issues

[Ninad Naik]

This patch series includes code style changes for lm93 driver to fix
several checkpatch.pl warnings. No functional changes are made. I tested
the changes by compiling the file.

Changes include:
- Add blank lines after variable declarations
- Change 'unsigned' to 'unsigned int'
- Remove else blocks after break or return statements

Ninad Naik (3):
  hwmon: lm93: Add missing blank lines after declarations
  hwmon: lm93: Change unsigned to unsigned int for clarity
  hwmon: lm93: Remove else blocks after break or return for consistency

 drivers/hwmon/lm93.c | 87 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
 1 file changed, 56 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)

-- 
2.54.0

[PATCH 1/3] hwmon: lm93: Add missing blank lines after declarations

[Ninad Naik]

Fix checkpatch.pl warning by adding blank lines after variable declaration.
No functional changes are made.

Signed-off-by: Ninad Naik <ninadnaik07@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/hwmon/lm93.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/lm93.c b/drivers/hwmon/lm93.c
index be4853fad80f..c15e2a02dd86 100644
--- a/drivers/hwmon/lm93.c
+++ b/drivers/hwmon/lm93.c
@@ -372,6 +372,7 @@ static u8 LM93_IN_TO_REG(int nr, unsigned val)
 	const long intercept = uv_min - slope * lm93_vin_reg_min[nr];
 
 	u8 result = ((uv - intercept + (slope/2)) / slope);
+
 	result = clamp_val(result,
 			   lm93_vin_reg_min[nr], lm93_vin_reg_max[nr]);
 	return result;
@@ -383,6 +384,7 @@ static unsigned LM93_IN_REL_FROM_REG(u8 reg, int upper, int vid)
 	const long uv_offset = upper ? (((reg >> 4 & 0x0f) + 1) * 12500) :
 				(((reg >> 0 & 0x0f) + 1) * -25000);
 	const long uv_vid = vid * 1000;
+
 	return (uv_vid + uv_offset + 5000) / 10000;
 }
 
@@ -397,6 +399,7 @@ static unsigned LM93_IN_REL_FROM_REG(u8 reg, int upper, int vid)
 static u8 LM93_IN_REL_TO_REG(unsigned val, int upper, int vid)
 {
 	long uv_offset = vid * 1000 - val * 10000;
+
 	if (upper) {
 		uv_offset = clamp_val(uv_offset, 12500, 200000);
 		return (u8)((uv_offset /  12500 - 1) << 4);
@@ -425,6 +428,7 @@ static int LM93_TEMP_FROM_REG(u8 reg)
 static u8 LM93_TEMP_TO_REG(long temp)
 {
 	int ntemp = clamp_val(temp, LM93_TEMP_MIN, LM93_TEMP_MAX);
+
 	ntemp += (ntemp < 0 ? -500 : 500);
 	return (u8)(ntemp / 1000);
 }
@@ -582,6 +586,7 @@ static int LM93_PWM_FROM_REG(u8 reg, enum pwm_freq freq)
 static u8 LM93_PWM_TO_REG(int pwm, enum pwm_freq freq)
 {
 	int i;
+
 	for (i = 0; i < 13; i++)
 		if (pwm <= lm93_pwm_map[freq][i])
 			break;
@@ -632,6 +637,7 @@ static int LM93_PWM_FREQ_FROM_REG(u8 reg)
 static u8 LM93_PWM_FREQ_TO_REG(int freq)
 {
 	int i;
+
 	for (i = 7; i > 0; i--)
 		if (freq <= lm93_pwm_freq_map[i])
 			break;
@@ -657,6 +663,7 @@ static int LM93_SPINUP_TIME_FROM_REG(u8 reg)
 static u8 LM93_SPINUP_TIME_TO_REG(int time)
 {
 	int i;
+
 	for (i = 0; i < 7; i++)
 		if (time <= lm93_spinup_time_map[i])
 			break;
@@ -710,6 +717,7 @@ static int LM93_INTERVAL_FROM_REG(u8 reg)
 static u8 LM93_INTERVAL_TO_REG(long interval)
 {
 	int i;
+
 	for (i = 0; i < 9; i++)
 		if (interval <= lm93_interval_map[i])
 			break;
@@ -772,6 +780,7 @@ static unsigned LM93_GPI_FROM_REG(u8 reg)
 static unsigned LM93_ALARMS_FROM_REG(struct block1_t b1)
 {
 	unsigned result;
+
 	result  = b1.host_status_2 & 0x3f;
 
 	if (vccp_limit_type[0])
@@ -1104,6 +1113,7 @@ static ssize_t in_show(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr,
 	int nr = (to_sensor_dev_attr(attr))->index;
 
 	struct lm93_data *data = lm93_update_device(dev);
+
 	return sprintf(buf, "%d\n", LM93_IN_FROM_REG(nr, data->block3[nr]));
 }
 
@@ -1259,6 +1269,7 @@ static ssize_t temp_show(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr,
 {
 	int nr = (to_sensor_dev_attr(attr))->index;
 	struct lm93_data *data = lm93_update_device(dev);
+
 	return sprintf(buf, "%d\n", LM93_TEMP_FROM_REG(data->block2[nr]));
 }
 
@@ -1271,6 +1282,7 @@ static ssize_t temp_min_show(struct device *dev,
 {
 	int nr = (to_sensor_dev_attr(attr))->index;
 	struct lm93_data *data = lm93_update_device(dev);
+
 	return sprintf(buf, "%d\n", LM93_TEMP_FROM_REG(data->temp_lim[nr].min));
 }
 
@@ -1304,6 +1316,7 @@ static ssize_t temp_max_show(struct device *dev,
 {
 	int nr = (to_sensor_dev_attr(attr))->index;
 	struct lm93_data *data = lm93_update_device(dev);
+
 	return sprintf(buf, "%d\n", LM93_TEMP_FROM_REG(data->temp_lim[nr].max));
 }
 
@@ -1337,6 +1350,7 @@ static ssize_t temp_auto_base_show(struct device *dev,
 {
 	int nr = (to_sensor_dev_attr(attr))->index;
 	struct lm93_data *data = lm93_update_device(dev);
+
 	return sprintf(buf, "%d\n", LM93_TEMP_FROM_REG(data->block10.base[nr]));
 }
 
@@ -1370,6 +1384,7 @@ static ssize_t temp_auto_boost_show(struct device *dev,
 {
 	int nr = (to_sensor_dev_attr(attr))->index;
 	struct lm93_data *data = lm93_update_device(dev);
+
 	return sprintf(buf, "%d\n", LM93_TEMP_FROM_REG(data->boost[nr]));
 }
 
@@ -1405,6 +1420,7 @@ static ssize_t temp_auto_boost_hyst_show(struct device *dev,
 	int nr = (to_sensor_dev_attr(attr))->index;
 	struct lm93_data *data = lm93_update_device(dev);
 	int mode = LM93_TEMP_OFFSET_MODE_FROM_REG(data->sfc2, nr);
+
 	return sprintf(buf, "%d\n",
 		       LM93_AUTO_BOOST_HYST_FROM_REGS(data, nr, mode));
 }
@@ -1447,6 +1463,7 @@ static ssize_t temp_auto_offset_show(struct device *dev,
 	int ofs = s_attr->nr;
 	struct lm93_data *data = lm93_update_device(dev);
 	int mode = LM93_TEMP_OFFSET_MODE_FROM_REG(data->sfc2, nr);
+
 	return sprintf(buf, "%d\n",
 	       LM93_TEMP_AUTO_OFFSET_FROM_REG(data->block10.offset[ofs],
 					      nr, mode));
@@ -1525,6 +1542,7 @@ static ssize_t temp_auto_pwm_min_show(struct device *dev,
 	int nr = (to_sensor_dev_attr(attr))->index;
 	u8 reg, ctl4;
 	struct lm93_data *data = lm93_update_device(dev);
+
 	reg = data->auto_pwm_min_hyst[nr/2] >> 4 & 0x0f;
 	ctl4 = data->block9[nr][LM93_PWM_CTL4];
 	return sprintf(buf, "%d\n", LM93_PWM_FROM_REG(reg, (ctl4 & 0x07) ?
@@ -1570,6 +1588,7 @@ static ssize_t temp_auto_offset_hyst_show(struct device *dev,
 	int nr = (to_sensor_dev_attr(attr))->index;
 	struct lm93_data *data = lm93_update_device(dev);
 	int mode = LM93_TEMP_OFFSET_MODE_FROM_REG(data->sfc2, nr);
+
 	return sprintf(buf, "%d\n", LM93_TEMP_OFFSET_FROM_REG(
 					data->auto_pwm_min_hyst[nr / 2], mode));
 }
@@ -1921,6 +1940,7 @@ static ssize_t pwm_auto_channels_show(struct device *dev,
 {
 	int nr = (to_sensor_dev_attr(attr))->index;
 	struct lm93_data *data = lm93_update_device(dev);
+
 	return sprintf(buf, "%d\n", data->block9[nr][LM93_PWM_CTL1]);
 }
 
@@ -2000,6 +2020,7 @@ static ssize_t pwm_auto_spinup_time_show(struct device *dev,
 {
 	int nr = (to_sensor_dev_attr(attr))->index;
 	struct lm93_data *data = lm93_update_device(dev);
+
 	return sprintf(buf, "%d\n", LM93_SPINUP_TIME_FROM_REG(
 				data->block9[nr][LM93_PWM_CTL3]));
 }
@@ -2035,6 +2056,7 @@ static ssize_t pwm_auto_prochot_ramp_show(struct device *dev,
 				struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf)
 {
 	struct lm93_data *data = lm93_update_device(dev);
+
 	return sprintf(buf, "%d\n",
 		       LM93_RAMP_FROM_REG(data->pwm_ramp_ctl >> 4 & 0x0f));
 }
@@ -2067,6 +2089,7 @@ static ssize_t pwm_auto_vrdhot_ramp_show(struct device *dev,
 				struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf)
 {
 	struct lm93_data *data = lm93_update_device(dev);
+
 	return sprintf(buf, "%d\n",
 		       LM93_RAMP_FROM_REG(data->pwm_ramp_ctl & 0x0f));
 }
@@ -2100,6 +2123,7 @@ static ssize_t vid_show(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr,
 {
 	int nr = (to_sensor_dev_attr(attr))->index;
 	struct lm93_data *data = lm93_update_device(dev);
+
 	return sprintf(buf, "%d\n", LM93_VID_FROM_REG(data->vid[nr]));
 }
 
@@ -2111,6 +2135,7 @@ static ssize_t prochot_show(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr,
 {
 	int nr = (to_sensor_dev_attr(attr))->index;
 	struct lm93_data *data = lm93_update_device(dev);
+
 	return sprintf(buf, "%d\n", data->block4[nr].cur);
 }
 
@@ -2122,6 +2147,7 @@ static ssize_t prochot_avg_show(struct device *dev,
 {
 	int nr = (to_sensor_dev_attr(attr))->index;
 	struct lm93_data *data = lm93_update_device(dev);
+
 	return sprintf(buf, "%d\n", data->block4[nr].avg);
 }
 
@@ -2133,6 +2159,7 @@ static ssize_t prochot_max_show(struct device *dev,
 {
 	int nr = (to_sensor_dev_attr(attr))->index;
 	struct lm93_data *data = lm93_update_device(dev);
+
 	return sprintf(buf, "%d\n", data->prochot_max[nr]);
 }
 
@@ -2168,6 +2195,7 @@ static ssize_t prochot_override_show(struct device *dev,
 {
 	int nr = (to_sensor_dev_attr(attr))->index;
 	struct lm93_data *data = lm93_update_device(dev);
+
 	return sprintf(buf, "%d\n",
 		(data->prochot_override & prochot_override_mask[nr]) ? 1 : 0);
 }
@@ -2206,6 +2234,7 @@ static ssize_t prochot_interval_show(struct device *dev,
 	int nr = (to_sensor_dev_attr(attr))->index;
 	struct lm93_data *data = lm93_update_device(dev);
 	u8 tmp;
+
 	if (nr == 1)
 		tmp = (data->prochot_interval & 0xf0) >> 4;
 	else
@@ -2248,6 +2277,7 @@ static ssize_t prochot_override_duty_cycle_show(struct device *dev,
 						char *buf)
 {
 	struct lm93_data *data = lm93_update_device(dev);
+
 	return sprintf(buf, "%d\n", data->prochot_override & 0x0f);
 }
 
@@ -2279,6 +2309,7 @@ static ssize_t prochot_short_show(struct device *dev,
 				struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf)
 {
 	struct lm93_data *data = lm93_update_device(dev);
+
 	return sprintf(buf, "%d\n", (data->config & 0x10) ? 1 : 0);
 }
 
@@ -2312,6 +2343,7 @@ static ssize_t vrdhot_show(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr,
 {
 	int nr = (to_sensor_dev_attr(attr))->index;
 	struct lm93_data *data = lm93_update_device(dev);
+
 	return sprintf(buf, "%d\n",
 		       data->block1.host_status_1 & (1 << (nr + 4)) ? 1 : 0);
 }
@@ -2323,6 +2355,7 @@ static ssize_t gpio_show(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr,
 				char *buf)
 {
 	struct lm93_data *data = lm93_update_device(dev);
+
 	return sprintf(buf, "%d\n", LM93_GPI_FROM_REG(data->gpi));
 }
 
@@ -2332,6 +2365,7 @@ static ssize_t alarms_show(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr,
 				char *buf)
 {
 	struct lm93_data *data = lm93_update_device(dev);
+
 	return sprintf(buf, "%d\n", LM93_ALARMS_FROM_REG(data->block1));
 }
 
-- 
2.54.0

[PATCH 2/3] hwmon: lm93: Change unsigned to unsigned int for clarity

[Ninad Naik]

Fix checkpatch.pl warning by changing unsigned to unsigned int
for clarity and to follow latest kernel code style.
No functional changes are made.

Signed-off-by: Ninad Naik <ninadnaik07@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/hwmon/lm93.c | 14 +++++++-------
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/lm93.c b/drivers/hwmon/lm93.c
index c15e2a02dd86..1a3b5da924b2 100644
--- a/drivers/hwmon/lm93.c
+++ b/drivers/hwmon/lm93.c
@@ -339,7 +339,7 @@ static const unsigned long lm93_vin_val_max[16] = {
  * };
  */
 
-static unsigned LM93_IN_FROM_REG(int nr, u8 reg)
+static unsigned int LM93_IN_FROM_REG(int nr, u8 reg)
 {
 	const long uv_max = lm93_vin_val_max[nr] * 1000;
 	const long uv_min = lm93_vin_val_min[nr] * 1000;
@@ -355,7 +355,7 @@ static unsigned LM93_IN_FROM_REG(int nr, u8 reg)
  * IN: mV, limits determined by channel nr
  * REG: scaling determined by channel nr
  */
-static u8 LM93_IN_TO_REG(int nr, unsigned val)
+static u8 LM93_IN_TO_REG(int nr, unsigned int val)
 {
 	/* range limit */
 	const long mv = clamp_val(val,
@@ -379,7 +379,7 @@ static u8 LM93_IN_TO_REG(int nr, unsigned val)
 }
 
 /* vid in mV, upper == 0 indicates low limit, otherwise upper limit */
-static unsigned LM93_IN_REL_FROM_REG(u8 reg, int upper, int vid)
+static unsigned int LM93_IN_REL_FROM_REG(u8 reg, int upper, int vid)
 {
 	const long uv_offset = upper ? (((reg >> 4 & 0x0f) + 1) * 12500) :
 				(((reg >> 0 & 0x0f) + 1) * -25000);
@@ -396,7 +396,7 @@ static unsigned LM93_IN_REL_FROM_REG(u8 reg, int upper, int vid)
  * upper also determines which nibble of the register is returned
  * (the other nibble will be 0x0)
  */
-static u8 LM93_IN_REL_TO_REG(unsigned val, int upper, int vid)
+static u8 LM93_IN_REL_TO_REG(unsigned int val, int upper, int vid)
 {
 	long uv_offset = vid * 1000 - val * 10000;
 
@@ -730,7 +730,7 @@ static u8 LM93_INTERVAL_TO_REG(long interval)
  * GPIO: 0-255, GPIO0 is LSB
  * REG: inverted
  */
-static unsigned LM93_GPI_FROM_REG(u8 reg)
+static unsigned int LM93_GPI_FROM_REG(u8 reg)
 {
 	return ~reg & 0xff;
 }
@@ -777,9 +777,9 @@ static unsigned LM93_GPI_FROM_REG(u8 reg)
 #define LM93_ALARM_TEMP2	0x20000000
 #define LM93_ALARM_TEMP3	0x40000000
 
-static unsigned LM93_ALARMS_FROM_REG(struct block1_t b1)
+static unsigned int LM93_ALARMS_FROM_REG(struct block1_t b1)
 {
-	unsigned result;
+	unsigned int result;
 
 	result  = b1.host_status_2 & 0x3f;
 
-- 
2.54.0

Re: [PATCH 2/3] hwmon: lm93: Change unsigned to unsigned int for clarity

[sashiko-bot]

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [High] Broken arithmetic and unsigned underflow in `LM93_IN_REL_TO_REG` completely breaks relative voltage limit configuration.
--

commit d027c76dfc6bdf77f6a91f44199f1d10dda57fdd
Author: Ninad Naik <ninadnaik07@gmail.com>

hwmon: lm93: Change unsigned to unsigned int for clarity

This commit fixes checkpatch.pl warnings by changing unsigned to unsigned int
for clarity and to follow the latest kernel code style.

> diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/lm93.c b/drivers/hwmon/lm93.c
> index c15e2a02dd86a..1a3b5da924b2e 100644
> --- a/drivers/hwmon/lm93.c
> +++ b/drivers/hwmon/lm93.c

[ ... ]

> @@ -396,7 +396,7 @@ static unsigned LM93_IN_REL_FROM_REG(u8 reg, int upper, int vid)
>   * upper also determines which nibble of the register is returned
>   * (the other nibble will be 0x0)
>   */
> -static u8 LM93_IN_REL_TO_REG(unsigned val, int upper, int vid)
> +static u8 LM93_IN_REL_TO_REG(unsigned int val, int upper, int vid)
>  {
>  	long uv_offset = vid * 1000 - val * 10000;

This isn't a regression introduced by this patch, but does this calculation
cause an unsigned underflow?

Because val is an unsigned int, the operation vid * 1000 - val * 10000 is
evaluated as unsigned. For an upper limit, the limit (val * 10000) is
typically greater than the voltage (vid * 1000), causing the subtraction to
wrap around to a large positive value.

On 64-bit systems, assigning this to long uv_offset zero-extends it. The
function then executes clamp_val(uv_offset, 12500, 200000). Because the
underflowed value is massive, it is clamped to the maximum bound (200000).
On 32-bit systems, the huge unsigned value is reinterpreted as negative and
clamped to the minimum bound (12500). For lower limits, the inverted
subtraction yields a positive value, which is then clamped against a
negative range (-400000 to -25000), forcing it to -25000.

Also, does the formula subtract in the wrong order? To correctly invert the
logic of LM93_IN_REL_FROM_REG (which computes
val = (vid * 1000 + uv_offset + 5000) / 10000), should the offset be
calculated as uv_offset = val * 10000 - vid * 1000?

Lastly, since the unbounded user input val is multiplied by 10000 prior to
any bounds checking, can large inputs silently overflow the 32-bit unsigned
integer?

Could these arithmetic regressions cause writes to the in_min or in_max
sysfs attributes for channels 6 and 7 to misconfigure the hardware
monitoring bounds, potentially masking important voltage alarms?

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260507101143.559475-1-ninadnaik07@gmail.com?part=2

[PATCH 3/3] hwmon: lm93: Remove else blocks after break or return for consistency

[Ninad Naik]

Fix checkpatch.pl warnings by removing multiple else blocks after break
or return statement to follow latest kernel code style.
Compiled the file and verified the changes. No functional changes are made.

Signed-off-by: Ninad Naik <ninadnaik07@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/hwmon/lm93.c | 39 +++++++++++++++------------------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/lm93.c b/drivers/hwmon/lm93.c
index 1a3b5da924b2..ddc4c4377128 100644
--- a/drivers/hwmon/lm93.c
+++ b/drivers/hwmon/lm93.c
@@ -403,10 +403,9 @@ static u8 LM93_IN_REL_TO_REG(unsigned int val, int upper, int vid)
 	if (upper) {
 		uv_offset = clamp_val(uv_offset, 12500, 200000);
 		return (u8)((uv_offset /  12500 - 1) << 4);
-	} else {
-		uv_offset = clamp_val(uv_offset, -400000, -25000);
-		return (u8)((uv_offset / -25000 - 1) << 0);
 	}
+	uv_offset = clamp_val(uv_offset, -400000, -25000);
+	return (u8)((uv_offset / -25000 - 1) << 0);
 }
 
 /*
@@ -811,15 +810,12 @@ static u8 lm93_read_byte(struct i2c_client *client, u8 reg)
 	/* retry in case of read errors */
 	for (i = 1; i <= MAX_RETRIES; i++) {
 		value = i2c_smbus_read_byte_data(client, reg);
-		if (value >= 0) {
+		if (value >= 0)
 			return value;
-		} else {
-			dev_warn(&client->dev,
+		dev_warn(&client->dev,
 				 "lm93: read byte data failed, address 0x%02x.\n",
 				 reg);
-			mdelay(i + 3);
-		}
-
+		mdelay(i + 3);
 	}
 
 	/* <TODO> what to return in case of error? */
@@ -849,15 +845,12 @@ static u16 lm93_read_word(struct i2c_client *client, u8 reg)
 	/* retry in case of read errors */
 	for (i = 1; i <= MAX_RETRIES; i++) {
 		value = i2c_smbus_read_word_data(client, reg);
-		if (value >= 0) {
+		if (value >= 0)
 			return value;
-		} else {
-			dev_warn(&client->dev,
-				 "lm93: read word data failed, address 0x%02x.\n",
-				 reg);
-			mdelay(i + 3);
-		}
-
+		dev_warn(&client->dev,
+			 "lm93: read word data failed, address 0x%02x.\n",
+			 reg);
+		mdelay(i + 3);
 	}
 
 	/* <TODO> what to return in case of error? */
@@ -895,14 +888,12 @@ static void lm93_read_block(struct i2c_client *client, u8 fbn, u8 *values)
 		result = i2c_smbus_read_block_data(client,
 			lm93_block_read_cmds[fbn].cmd, lm93_block_buffer);
 
-		if (result == lm93_block_read_cmds[fbn].len) {
+		if (result == lm93_block_read_cmds[fbn].len)
 			break;
-		} else {
-			dev_warn(&client->dev,
-				 "lm93: block read data failed, command 0x%02x.\n",
-				 lm93_block_read_cmds[fbn].cmd);
-			mdelay(i + 3);
-		}
+		dev_warn(&client->dev,
+			 "lm93: block read data failed, command 0x%02x.\n",
+			 lm93_block_read_cmds[fbn].cmd);
+		mdelay(i + 3);
 	}
 
 	if (result == lm93_block_read_cmds[fbn].len) {
-- 
2.54.0

Re: [PATCH 0/3] hwmon: lm93: clean up coding style issues

[Guenter Roeck]

On 5/7/26 03:11, Ninad Naik wrote:
> This patch series includes code style changes for lm93 driver to fix
> several checkpatch.pl warnings. No functional changes are made. I tested
> the changes by compiling the file.
> 
> Changes include:
> - Add blank lines after variable declarations
> - Change 'unsigned' to 'unsigned int'
> - Remove else blocks after break or return statements
> 
> Ninad Naik (3):
>    hwmon: lm93: Add missing blank lines after declarations
>    hwmon: lm93: Change unsigned to unsigned int for clarity
>    hwmon: lm93: Remove else blocks after break or return for consistency
> 
>   drivers/hwmon/lm93.c | 87 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
>   1 file changed, 56 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
> 

Please refrain from submitting such cleanups into the hwnon subsystem.
As you can see from Sashiko's feedback, the driver has functional problems.
On top of that, it uses a deprecated API.

Fixing actual bugs and backporting them is only made more difficult by
cosmetic changes. I don't mind if cosmetic changes are made as part of
a functional series, in this case for example when porting the driver
to use the with_info hwmon API. On their own they have no value.

Thanks,
Guenter