From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pl1-f171.google.com (mail-pl1-f171.google.com [209.85.214.171]) (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 6056910F4 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2023 13:05:41 +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="HTOZbSY3" Received: by mail-pl1-f171.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-1c0ecb9a075so12052375ad.2 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2023 06:05:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1697893540; x=1698498340; darn=lists.linux.dev; h=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=G5f1f0vQfSjdVi/REtt5j0YQgF8soTdJTFMLk1PEhnc=; b=HTOZbSY3gjrXScvmSeJ7iy9jtPvj98t0gOUnwl90SB7fzOeyU6dLJUqz8lU1ZF01D7 ZYfWNHTRQ5qZvrJEx1G/W/3yIPtIh5MDGN8753mOK8/DAo9RW5197TlVMsMvB/DnBcYg aQCH1S2Ml3gr3Fns819c4XqQ5+9ZzIbUTsiCN5Gdkmka/YaiAG3dtru2Q6Pz1/10UdOi 26Dezn6wxKM7mj05Iotc+WNik09ZQQJ+EvyJOPt/kxhvEl8qvpfn6Qu00SsCfI8nmgVm wN4koL2zdtD25n6Gf8hGvC0cfyDc82VxvzvS174c37AZzGBjuyn8pxv7kHG/QSt/4E2Z 5ZhQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1697893540; x=1698498340; h=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=G5f1f0vQfSjdVi/REtt5j0YQgF8soTdJTFMLk1PEhnc=; b=nByNgL+qzYa3KAe5Fb/MiipTjx2y/0IfHgyw1+ltXqYoiIynYMuBtR3kG1SBoSGAmf 7/zdcxBNYpOTcr3DcBSmqpbvrjDjgeEtSaGxHSlrITAj8jn9OpSH4+mFJNg2F+Tj/hbf q2i/anjrkU154kW3m+zD9TrcVu19nR64pFSGMVZOFcWIaTNtgmCs7LbAPlkV6VbNSC+0 aCU43KcTD3fCDIgJvvt+2Dep4StDW0iEehgNs83yP/zSYEoXmbUI/gPtV/pZCZWyD16A EcP7J6Ai9HTddy0XrRtCLiZJg5N86DYyCIPEIDPtSZiCrqUXaX5c2Fp4sZvkpxCUSz+Z eyyw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YznT91bpOSc1LQ7KrjNIDRY3soqEPPXLC+77p1SFPrxVaNMwH8w T+S5RHjfbYA5qV0kZ4PyfmaDrs5HNuYR3Q== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFHYGt3bF0G2tCnQmvxBHxEud8YIBJqmnRa57y5tilld1MEtDW8BNCG6blbLAEA1bLsnbhCeQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:903:2012:b0:1c5:bea4:8537 with SMTP id s18-20020a170903201200b001c5bea48537mr2867431pla.15.1697893540382; Sat, 21 Oct 2023 06:05:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ubuntu ([122.167.9.184]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j6-20020a170902da8600b001c9c8d761a3sm3130187plx.131.2023.10.21.06.05.38 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sat, 21 Oct 2023 06:05:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2023 06:05:35 -0700 From: Nandha Kumar Singaram To: Alex Elder Cc: Johan Hovold , Alex Elder , Greg Kroah-Hartman , greybus-dev@lists.linaro.org, linux-staging@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: greybus: Alignment should match open parenthesis Message-ID: <20231021130535.GA12776@ubuntu> References: <20231019213949.GA2922@ubuntu> 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: On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 07:15:37PM -0500, Alex Elder wrote: > On 10/19/23 4:39 PM, Nandha Kumar Singaram wrote: > > Adhere to linux coding style. Reported by checkpatch.pl: > > CHECK: Alignment should match open parenthesis > > Sometimes checkpatch.pl warns about things that are not > really that important. One class of this type of issue > is white space errors. > > Yes, consistency is good, but the kernel simply doesn't > have universally consistent conventions, and I doubt > it ever will. There might be times where a source file > consistently follows a white space convention that > differs from what checkpatch wants. Suggesting a > wholesale change to that file to "fix" that typically > wouldn't be welcome. > > Unfortunately without some experience it's hard to know > which checkpatch warnings can be safely ignored. I would > place white space warnings at a lower priority for fixing > than some others. For example, this is also a pretty > trivial warning: > CHECK: Macro argument 'gcam' may be better as '(gcam)' to avoid precedence > issues > And it is most likely not a problem in this case, but fixing > this type of warning is probably more constructive than > just adjusting white space. > > I have no objection to your patch, and it's a fine way to > get some experience with the patch process, but I don't > think this particular change is necessary. > > -Alex > > > Signed-off-by: Nandha Kumar Singaram > > --- > > drivers/staging/greybus/camera.c | 14 +++++++------- > > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/greybus/camera.c b/drivers/staging/greybus/camera.c > > index cdbb42cd413b..405c8e78aa72 100644 > > --- a/drivers/staging/greybus/camera.c > > +++ b/drivers/staging/greybus/camera.c > > @@ -220,7 +220,7 @@ static int gb_camera_operation_sync_flags(struct gb_connection *connection, > > } > > static int gb_camera_get_max_pkt_size(struct gb_camera *gcam, > > - struct gb_camera_configure_streams_response *resp) > > + struct gb_camera_configure_streams_response *resp) > > { > > unsigned int max_pkt_size = 0; > > unsigned int i; > > @@ -267,8 +267,7 @@ static int gb_camera_get_max_pkt_size(struct gb_camera *gcam, > > * Validate the stream configuration response verifying padding is correctly > > * set and the returned number of streams is supported > > */ > > -static const int gb_camera_configure_streams_validate_response( > > - struct gb_camera *gcam, > > +static const int gb_camera_configure_streams_validate_response(struct gb_camera *gcam, > > struct gb_camera_configure_streams_response *resp, > > unsigned int nstreams) > > { > > @@ -378,8 +377,8 @@ struct ap_csi_config_request { > > #define GB_CAMERA_CSI_CLK_FREQ_MARGIN 150000000U > > static int gb_camera_setup_data_connection(struct gb_camera *gcam, > > - struct gb_camera_configure_streams_response *resp, > > - struct gb_camera_csi_params *csi_params) > > + struct gb_camera_configure_streams_response *resp, > > + struct gb_camera_csi_params *csi_params) > > { > > struct ap_csi_config_request csi_cfg; > > struct gb_connection *conn; > > @@ -783,8 +782,9 @@ static ssize_t gb_camera_op_capabilities(void *priv, char *data, size_t len) > > } > > static int gb_camera_op_configure_streams(void *priv, unsigned int *nstreams, > > - unsigned int *flags, struct gb_camera_stream *streams, > > - struct gb_camera_csi_params *csi_params) > > + unsigned int *flags, > > + struct gb_camera_stream *streams, > > + struct gb_camera_csi_params *csi_params) > > { > > struct gb_camera *gcam = priv; > > struct gb_camera_stream_config *gb_streams; > Thanks Alex for the review and feedback. Regards, Nandha Kumar