Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] irqchip/tegra: Clean up coding style

[Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com>]

13.08.2019 19:18, Marc Zyngier пишет:
> On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 16:40:27 +0100,
> Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 13.08.2019 17:50, Marc Zyngier пишет:
>>> On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 19:30:44 +0100,
>>> Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Make coding style to conform to the kernel's standard by fixing checkpatch
>>>> warnings about "line over 80 characters".
>>>
>>> The last time I used a VT100 was about 30 years ago. I still think
>>> this was one of the most brilliant piece of equipment DEC ever
>>> produced, but I replaced it at the time with a Wyse 50 that had a 132
>>> column mode. But even then, I could make my XTerm as wide as I wanted,
>>> and things haven't regressed much since.
>>>
>>> More seriously, I don't consider the 80 column limit a hard one, and
>>> I'm pretty happy with code that spans more that 80 columns if that
>>> allows to read an expression without messing with the flow.
>>
>> Usually I have multiple source files opened side-by-side and the
>> view sizes are tuned for 80 chars, it messes at least my flow when
>> something goes over 80 chars.
>>
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  drivers/irqchip/irq-tegra.c | 15 +++++----------
>>>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-tegra.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-tegra.c
>>>> index 14dcacc2ad38..f829a5990dae 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-tegra.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-tegra.c
>>>> @@ -74,7 +74,7 @@ static struct tegra_ictlr_info *lic;
>>>>  
>>>>  static inline void tegra_ictlr_write_mask(struct irq_data *d, unsigned long reg)
>>>>  {
>>>> -	void __iomem *base = (void __iomem __force *)d->chip_data;
>>>> +	void __iomem *base = lic->base[d->hwirq / 32];
>>>
>>> (1) This is an undocumented change
>>
>> In my opinion this is a very trivial change and then the end result
>> is absolutely the same, hence nothing to document here. Just read
>> the code, I'd say.
> 
> And that is the very reason why I won't take any of your patches any
> time soon.

Sorry, the last part probably sounds a bit offending, but that's not
what I meant (please note that english isn't my native language). I was
just trying to say that the code is self-explanatory in my opinion.
Anyway, it's not a bad excuse for me to get a break from it all. Sorry
again.