Re: [PATCH v3] staging: greybus: merge split lines

[Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@intel.com>]

On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 09:21:35PM +0500, Khadija Kamran wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 01:26:33PM +0500, Khadija Kamran wrote:
> > If condition and spin_unlock_...() call is split into two lines, merge
> > them to form a single line.
> > 
> > Suggested-by: Deepak R Varma drv@mailo.com
> > Signed-off-by: Khadija Kamran <kamrankhadijadj@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > 
> > Changes in v3:
> >  - Removing tab to fix line length results in a new checkpatch warning,
> >    so let the fix length be as it is.
> > Changes in v2:
> >  - Rephrased he subject and description
> >  - Merged if_condition() and spin_unlock...() into one line
> >  - Link to patch:
> >  https://lore.kernel.org/outreachy/ZAusnKYVTGvO5zoi@khadija-virtual-machine/
> > 
> > Link to first patch:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/outreachy/ZAtkW6g6DwPg%2FpDp@khadija-virtual-machine/
> > 
> >  drivers/staging/greybus/arche-platform.c | 6 ++----
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/greybus/arche-platform.c b/drivers/staging/greybus/arche-platform.c
> > index fcbd5f71eff2..6890710afdfc 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/greybus/arche-platform.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/greybus/arche-platform.c
> > @@ -176,12 +176,10 @@ static irqreturn_t arche_platform_wd_irq(int irq, void *devid)
> >  				 * Check we are not in middle of irq thread
> >  				 * already
> >  				 */
> > -				if (arche_pdata->wake_detect_state !=
> > -						WD_STATE_COLDBOOT_START) {
> > +				if (arche_pdata->wake_detect_state != WD_STATE_COLDBOOT_START) {
> >  					arche_platform_set_wake_detect_state(arche_pdata,
> >  									     WD_STATE_COLDBOOT_TRIG);
> > -					spin_unlock_irqrestore(&arche_pdata->wake_lock,
> > -							       flags);
> > +					spin_unlock_irqrestore(&arche_pdata->wake_lock, flags);
> >  					return IRQ_WAKE_THREAD;
> >  				}
> >  			}
> > --
> > 2.34.1
> >
> 
> Hey Outreachy Mentors,
> 
> Kindly take a look at this patch and let me know if it is okay to work
> on this file or should I look for other cleanup patches.

Hi Khadija,

I thought you were abandoning *this* patch, and doing a refactor on
the function.  I'd expect that would be a new patch, probably a
patchset. One where you align the work based on the 'rising' and
'falling' detection, and perhaps a second patch that centralizes
the unlock and return.

Is there some other concern with working on this file?

Alison

> 
> Thank you for your time.
> Regards,
> Khadija
> 
>