From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dan Carpenter Subject: Re: [PATCH] spi: mediatek: Attempt to address style issues in spi-mt7621.c Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 15:34:54 +0300 Message-ID: <20190313123454.GB2202@kadam> References: <20190313122403.248873-1-armax@google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190313122403.248873-1-armax@google.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: driverdev-devel-bounces@linuxdriverproject.org Sender: "devel" To: Armando Miraglia Cc: devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, matthias.bgg@gmail.com, Armando Miraglia , linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org, sankalpnegi2310@gmail.com, neil@brown.name, sr@denx.de, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 01:24:04PM +0100, Armando Miraglia wrote: > Running Lindent on the mt7621-spi.c file in drivers/staging I noticed that the > file contained style issues. This change attempts to address such style > problems. > Don't run lindent. I think checkpatch.pl has a --fix option that might be better, but once the code is merged then our standard become much higher for follow up patches. > Signed-off-by: Armando Miraglia > --- > NOTE: resend this patch to include all mainteners listed by get_mantainers.pl. > drivers/staging/mt7621-spi/spi-mt7621.c | 27 +++++++++++++------------ > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/mt7621-spi/spi-mt7621.c b/drivers/staging/mt7621-spi/spi-mt7621.c > index b509f9fe3346..03d53845f8c5 100644 > --- a/drivers/staging/mt7621-spi/spi-mt7621.c > +++ b/drivers/staging/mt7621-spi/spi-mt7621.c > @@ -52,14 +52,14 @@ > #define MT7621_LSB_FIRST BIT(3) > > struct mt7621_spi { > - struct spi_master *master; > - void __iomem *base; > - unsigned int sys_freq; > - unsigned int speed; > - struct clk *clk; > - int pending_write; > - > - struct mt7621_spi_ops *ops; > + struct spi_master *master; > + void __iomem *base; > + unsigned int sys_freq; > + unsigned int speed; > + struct clk *clk; > + int pending_write; > + > + struct mt7621_spi_ops *ops; The original is fine. I don't encourage people to do fancy indenting with their local variable declarations inside functions but for a struct the declarations aren't going to change a lot so people can get fancy if they want. The problem with a local is if you need to add a new variable then you have to re-indent a bunch of unrelated lines or have one out of alignment line. Most people know this intuitively so they don't get fancy. > }; > > static inline struct mt7621_spi *spidev_to_mt7621_spi(struct spi_device *spi) > @@ -303,7 +303,7 @@ static int mt7621_spi_setup(struct spi_device *spi) > struct mt7621_spi *rs = spidev_to_mt7621_spi(spi); > > if ((spi->max_speed_hz == 0) || > - (spi->max_speed_hz > (rs->sys_freq / 2))) > + (spi->max_speed_hz > (rs->sys_freq / 2))) Yeah. Lindent is correct here. > spi->max_speed_hz = (rs->sys_freq / 2); > > if (spi->max_speed_hz < (rs->sys_freq / 4097)) { > @@ -316,9 +316,10 @@ static int mt7621_spi_setup(struct spi_device *spi) > } > > static const struct of_device_id mt7621_spi_match[] = { > - { .compatible = "ralink,mt7621-spi" }, > + {.compatible = "ralink,mt7621-spi"}, The original was better. > {}, > }; > + > MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, mt7621_spi_match); No need for a blank. These are closely related. > > static int mt7621_spi_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > @@ -408,9 +409,9 @@ MODULE_ALIAS("platform:" DRIVER_NAME); > > static struct platform_driver mt7621_spi_driver = { > .driver = { > - .name = DRIVER_NAME, > - .of_match_table = mt7621_spi_match, > - }, > + .name = DRIVER_NAME, > + .of_match_table = mt7621_spi_match, > + }, The new indenting is very wrong. regards, dan carpenter