Re: [PATCH] staging: greybus: power_supply fix alignment

[Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Mon, Jul 14, 2025 at 05:38:31PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva wrote:
> Hey Akhil,
> Thanks for your patch.
> 
> All looks good with the exception of a small nit...
> 
> On Mon Jul 14, 2025 at 2:56 PM WEST, Akhil Varkey wrote:
> 
> > Fix checkpatch check "CHECK:Alignment should match open parenthesis"
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Akhil Varkey <akhilvarkey@disroot.org>
> > ---
> >
> > Hello, This is my first patch, I appreciate any feedbacks. Thanks!!
> 
> Welcome, and continue...
> 
> > ---
> >  drivers/staging/greybus/power_supply.c | 14 +++++++-------
> >  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/greybus/power_supply.c b/drivers/staging/greybus/power_supply.c
> > index 2ef46822f676..a484c0ca058d 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/greybus/power_supply.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/greybus/power_supply.c
> > @@ -324,7 +324,7 @@ static struct gb_power_supply_prop *get_psy_prop(struct gb_power_supply *gbpsy,
> >  }
> >  
> >  static int is_psy_prop_writeable(struct gb_power_supply *gbpsy,
> > -				     enum power_supply_property psp)
> > +				 enum power_supply_property psp)
> >  {
> >  	struct gb_power_supply_prop *prop;
> >  
> > @@ -493,7 +493,7 @@ static int gb_power_supply_description_get(struct gb_power_supply *gbpsy)
> >  	if (!gbpsy->model_name)
> >  		return -ENOMEM;
> >  	gbpsy->serial_number = kstrndup(resp.serial_number, PROP_MAX,
> > -				       GFP_KERNEL);
> > +					GFP_KERNEL);
> >  	if (!gbpsy->serial_number)
> >  		return -ENOMEM;
> >  
> > @@ -546,7 +546,7 @@ static int gb_power_supply_prop_descriptors_get(struct gb_power_supply *gbpsy)
> >  	}
> >  
> >  	gbpsy->props = kcalloc(gbpsy->properties_count, sizeof(*gbpsy->props),
> > -			      GFP_KERNEL);
> > +			       GFP_KERNEL);
> >  	if (!gbpsy->props) {
> >  		ret = -ENOMEM;
> >  		goto out_put_operation;
> > @@ -634,8 +634,8 @@ static int __gb_power_supply_property_get(struct gb_power_supply *gbpsy,
> >  }
> >  
> >  static int __gb_power_supply_property_strval_get(struct gb_power_supply *gbpsy,
> > -						enum power_supply_property psp,
> > -						union power_supply_propval *val)
> > +						 enum power_supply_property psp,
> > +						 union power_supply_propval *val)
> 
> Here you fix the alignment, but the last line goes over column 81, even
> though 80 is not really one hard requirement anymore, all code
> (strings is ok to go over to be easier to grep for messages) is on that
> register.
> 
> So, to be coherent, if you could please send a V2 without this specific change
> would be great, Or even better, if you could get rid of all the _ and __
> prefixes in functions names that would be great, and will give more
> space for function paramethers.
> Your call.

Nah, this is fine as-is, we can go over the limit to 100 for tiny stuff
like this.

And the __ prefixes should be there to show no locking, or "internal"
functions, right?  So changing the name needs to happen very carefully.

thanks,

greg k-h