Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] Staging: sm750fb: Rename displayControlAdjust_SM750E

Greg Kroah-Hartman
2023-10-17T08:34:46Z

On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 11:28:06AM +0300, Dorcas Litunya wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 09:50:50AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 11:14:08PM +0300, Dorcas AnonoLitunya wrote:
> > > Rename function displayControlAdjust_SM750E to
> > > display_control_adjust_SM750E. This follows snakecase naming convention
> > > and ensures a consistent naming style throughout the file. Issue found by
> > > checkpatch.
> > >
> > > Mutes the following error:
> > > CHECK:Avoid CamelCase: <displayControlAdjust_SM750E>
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Dorcas AnonoLitunya <anonolitunya@gmail.com>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/staging/sm750fb/ddk750_mode.c | 6 +++---
> > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/sm750fb/ddk750_mode.c b/drivers/staging/sm750fb/ddk750_mode.c
> > > index e00a6cb31947..8708995f676c 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/staging/sm750fb/ddk750_mode.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/staging/sm750fb/ddk750_mode.c
> > > @@ -14,8 +14,8 @@
> > > * in bit 29:27 of Display Control register.
> > > */
> > > static unsigned long
> > > -displayControlAdjust_SM750LE(struct mode_parameter *pModeParam,
> > > - unsigned long dispControl)
> > > +display_control_adjust_SM750LE(struct mode_parameter *pModeParam,
> > > + unsigned long dispControl)
> > > {
> > > unsigned long x, y;
> > >
> > > @@ -125,7 +125,7 @@ static int programModeRegisters(struct mode_parameter *pModeParam,
> > > tmp |= DISPLAY_CTRL_HSYNC_PHASE;
> > >
> > > if (sm750_get_chip_type() == SM750LE) {
> > > - displayControlAdjust_SM750LE(pModeParam, tmp);
> > > + display_control_adjust_SM750LE(pModeParam, tmp);
> >
> > Why is this function returning a value if it is just being ignored?
> >
> > It's not the issue here in the patch, but for future changes.
> >
> Hi Greg,
>
> I will do the correction in the next patchset to correct both functions
> return value as this patchset was not focused on that. Does this mean
> that this patchset has been accepted? Or should I submit another
> patchset that includes the two changes suggested on function return
> values?

You'll get an email from my system when it is accepted, wait a day or so
before worrying about that. And then send new patches on top of them
then.

thanks,

greg k-h