Re:Re: [PATCH v2] ufs: host: ufschd-pltfrm: Hold reference returned by of_parse_phandle()

["Liang He" <windhl@126.com>]

At 2022-07-17 22:58:45, "Bart Van Assche" <bvanassche@acm.org> wrote:
>On 7/16/22 20:03, Liang He wrote:
>> At 2022-07-16 21:50:08, "Bart Van Assche" <bvanassche@acm.org> wrote:
>>> On 7/14/22 17:17, Liang He wrote:
>>>> +static bool phandle_exists(const struct device_node *np,
>>>> +						const char *phandle_name,
>>>> +						int index)
>>>
>>> Indentation of the arguments now looks really odd :-(
>> 
>> Yes, Bart, I also wonder this coding style, however I learned that
>> from the definition of 'of_parse_phandle' in of.h.
>> 
>> Is it OK if I put all of them in one line？
>
>No. From Documentation/process/coding-style.rst (please read that 
>document in its entirety): "The preferred limit on the length of a 
>single line is 80 columns. [...] A very commonly used style
>is to align descendants to a function open parenthesis."
>
>Consider to use the following formatting:
>
>static bool phandle_exists(const struct device_node *np,
>			   const char *phandle_name, int index)
>{
>	[ ... ]
>}
>

Hi, Bart, 

Can you help me as I have a trouble about the indentation.

When I align descendants to a function open parenthesis in VIM editor,
but when I generate the patch, I find the second line always missing one space in
patch format. So is there any problem if I send this patch?

I make sure that the alignment in VIM is OK.

Thanks, 
Liang


>>>> +{
>>>> +	struct device_node *parse_np = of_parse_phandle(np, phandle_name, index);
>>>> +	bool ret = false;
>>>> +
>>>> +	if (parse_np) {
>>>> +		ret = true;
>>>> +		of_node_put(parse_np);
>>>> +	}
>>>> +
>>>> +	return ret;
>>>> +}
>>>
>>> The 'ret' variable is not necessary. If "return ret" is changed into
>>> "return parse_np" then the variable 'ret' can be left out.
>>>
>> 
>> OK, I will use 'return parse_np' in new version when you confirm above coding style.
>
>You may want to use "return parse_np != NULL" if you want to be sure 
>that nobody else will complain about an implicit conversion of a pointer 
>to a boolean type.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Bart.