From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pl1-f175.google.com (mail-pl1-f175.google.com [209.85.214.175]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D57EC24200; Fri, 13 Oct 2023 21:19:19 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="RhKVceEu" Received: by mail-pl1-f175.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-1c9de3f66e5so18532025ad.3; Fri, 13 Oct 2023 14:19:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1697231959; x=1697836759; darn=lists.linux.dev; h=user-agent:in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references :message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=yEpkSqStdpwPiK/rVH9XpS0uAjkRc6GI778X+nK4/Co=; b=RhKVceEu7cBSU6wG5IklijXpyc5uvpMvJ3uut86P6l6h1/e1S54i97s0vtiyqssmCI xlEYY+eXIHxix/T6HjWIL8CHNS9wYCLixmKGlTBams1WVOOny0pFf4a4iPrMVLlFZ48z KEHlIJ0zQQbf5KwDmdgpeKjdHvnymmz80V+J2YwwbRT33//9cZlICdQTRutGzsDPYjxo yAVQCYQM+A4ggsHXzQl0LUwum6RtYBeiXn0yxNMYPG/hcJLd3+RcI1rJ3dM3I7cUyivB XqloMBgbCrI9Wk04vpfmRfhWiYq4ccmUtkYS3E7cAn/thKqNTIHULtspwHsrrGyMgRZe khdw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1697231959; x=1697836759; h=user-agent:in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references :message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=yEpkSqStdpwPiK/rVH9XpS0uAjkRc6GI778X+nK4/Co=; b=TZagGoGiVqGQU3eT1WHh2eE7UCFnX7VLtZ1XRNfdjG1zhBb+iFL+JSb6PXcEr8Xois Zei0XJ0E5RWHyFhH/0rOUIQz1Vvem06EDl3JEBPtKCeRcXD7YgQJVqrwiUTpmSD2L1BD p0toS0B+2mnh6M+EUGs3ei9psSxa5Qiu8UHMzymAWZZNSooQ3eMRTxwgx2SfR6tA7ryI FYh06rOv+rvDCFojQSGtIYKw4Pn37S2Sfu4P8NvXfNBSVvVW+Z5QxZQ8n1bbpW48ixqh VpcisMCxUAw+g4yMN/laDwHW6ulpho3IpQBysO31yWAUb9AJ/M2E2Pwy8KoA4YvcoO/o eIAw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxtYsXvvR0pg42+Deagou80Yg+SZRoF5W0MvPodC6lmGBrkpH/s Ltq+t6qZ7c2otvG/1EiEijY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGne9RAForm81Cux/ImQ6vwu8UtSeNW4OLKNkPG30bXI6R9jSzKXWlJzEYOoBTC2MoPirf6nw== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:a504:b0:1c6:17a4:afb3 with SMTP id s4-20020a170902a50400b001c617a4afb3mr22449486plq.16.1697231959067; Fri, 13 Oct 2023 14:19:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Negi ([68.181.16.134]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d17-20020a170903231100b001bb99e188fcsm4301830plh.194.2023.10.13.14.19.18 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 13 Oct 2023 14:19:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2023 14:19:18 -0700 From: Soumya Negi To: Dan Carpenter Cc: Jonathan Kim , Dean ahn , Greg Kroah-Hartman , outreachy@lists.linux.dev, linux-staging@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] tty: gdm724x: Fix coding style checkpatch warnings Message-ID: <20231013211917.GC25352@Negi> References: <20231013051502.9578-1-soumya.negi97@gmail.com> <663c85bb-90c3-4ae1-ab0b-5ab1a8abd2a7@kadam.mountain> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-staging@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <663c85bb-90c3-4ae1-ab0b-5ab1a8abd2a7@kadam.mountain> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 11:53:36AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 10:14:58PM -0700, Soumya Negi wrote: > > @@ -271,8 +272,8 @@ int register_lte_tty_driver(void) > > int ret; > > > > for (i = 0; i < TTY_MAX_COUNT; i++) { > > - tty_driver = tty_alloc_driver(GDM_TTY_MINOR, > > - TTY_DRIVER_REAL_RAW | TTY_DRIVER_DYNAMIC_DEV); > > + tty_driver = tty_alloc_driver(GDM_TTY_MINOR, TTY_DRIVER_REAL_RAW | > > + TTY_DRIVER_DYNAMIC_DEV); > > Don't do this. The code was better before. The parameter > "TTY_DRIVER_REAL_RAW | TTY_DRIVER_DYNAMIC_DEV" is one thing and > splitting it up like that makes the code less readable. And I bet they > had to indent it like that to get under the 80 character limit. > > This is an example of checkpatch giving bad advice. Hi Dan, Will keep this in mind for other similar checkpatch warnings. Thanks, Soumya > regards, > dan carpenter >