Re: [PATCH 2/2] hwmon: (pmbus/adp1050): Support adp1051 and adp1055

[Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>]

On Thu, Nov 07, 2024 at 01:17:04AM +0000, Torreno, Alexis Czezar wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, November 7, 2024 12:01 AM
> > On Wed, Nov 06, 2024 at 07:55:30AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > On 11/6/24 03:24, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Nov 06, 2024 at 05:03:11PM +0800, Alexis Cezar Torreno wrote:

...

> > > Is that an official tag ? Frankly, if so, I think it is quite useless
> > > in the patch description because datasheet locations keep changing.
> > > I think it is much better to provide a link in the driver documentation.
> > 
> > I believe it's semi-official, meaning that people use it from time to time.
> > I'm fine with the Link in the documentation. Actually with any solution that
> > saves the respective link in the kernel source tree (either in form of commit
> > message or documentation / comments in the code).
> 
> Will add the blank line after description. 
> Am I right to understand that we leave this as is? No need to add driver link
> in patch description since it is in driver documentation?

Add it to the documentation.

...

> > > > > +static struct pmbus_driver_info adp1055_info = {
> > > > > +	.pages = 1,
> > > > > +	.format[PSC_VOLTAGE_IN] = linear,
> > > > > +	.format[PSC_VOLTAGE_OUT] = linear,
> > > > > +	.format[PSC_CURRENT_IN] = linear,
> > > > > +	.format[PSC_TEMPERATURE] = linear,
> > > > > +	.func[0] = PMBUS_HAVE_VIN | PMBUS_HAVE_IIN |
> > PMBUS_HAVE_VOUT
> > > > > +		   | PMBUS_HAVE_IOUT | PMBUS_HAVE_TEMP2 |
> > PMBUS_HAVE_TEMP3
> > > > > +		   | PMBUS_HAVE_POUT | PMBUS_HAVE_STATUS_VOUT
> > > > > +		   | PMBUS_HAVE_STATUS_IOUT |
> > PMBUS_HAVE_STATUS_INPUT
> > > > > +		   | PMBUS_HAVE_STATUS_TEMP,
> > > >
> > > > Ditto.
> > >
> > > That one slipped through with the original driver submission.
> > > I thought that checkpatch complains about that, but it turns out that
> > > it doesn't. I agree, though, that the usual style should be used.
> > 
> > Oh, okay, that's up to you then.

> I based my code style on the original, but I agree that the usual style
> should be followed.  

> I will change it to follow the usual style.

No, please be consistent with the existing style. If you want to change it,
add an additional patch to do that for the _existing_ code first and base your
patch on top of that.

> Should I leave the original untouched or should I format it too?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko