From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-lf0-f68.google.com ([209.85.215.68]:34348 "EHLO mail-lf0-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751350AbdBSQVq (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 Feb 2017 11:21:46 -0500 Received: by mail-lf0-f68.google.com with SMTP id q89so7223904lfi.1 for ; Sun, 19 Feb 2017 08:21:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [RFC v3 0/8] ath10k sdio support To: "Valo, Kalle" References: <1484342771-6160-1-git-send-email-erik.stromdahl@gmail.com> <87fujbhb29.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> <1c87e0d1-1f14-08bb-2a69-650788fba8dc@gmail.com> <877f4ngii5.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> <8737fagu28.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> Cc: "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" , "ath10k@lists.infradead.org" From: Erik Stromdahl Message-ID: (sfid-20170219_172150_087153_EEFC4857) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2017 17:21:43 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <8737fagu28.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Ok, I'll do another round of checkpatch before I submit anything. I couldn't find the script you mentioned though (ath10k-check). Is it some kind of checkpatch wrapper? Anyway, I have a few warnings related to 'line over 80 chars' that is really hard to get rid of (without breaking indentation etc.) so I won't do anything about those for now. Then there are some other warnings about the BIT macro being preferred over (1 << x). I have used (1 << x) in some files despite the checkpatch warning in order to keep the patches consistent with the existing code. I think the best approach is to have a separate round of cleanup-patches replacing all (1 << x) with BIT(x). -- Erik On 2017-02-19 14:59, Valo, Kalle wrote: > Kalle Valo writes: > >> Erik Stromdahl writes: >> >>> I was actually about to email you about this. >>> >>> I have made a few more updates to the sdio code so I think it would be >>> best if I could submit a new series of patches based on this code (v4). >>> >>> Then you can tweak it (v5). >>> >>> It is only minor updates to the HIF layer (added QCA9377 support) and >>> a setup of some pll registers. >> >> Ok, that sounds good. I'll wait for v4. > > Forgot to mention can you run ath10k-check before submitting them, it > shows few problems: > > https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/users/drivers/ath10k/codingstyle#checking_code > > But if you wonder what this is about it's checkpatch warning about camel > case (doesn't like the lower case x character): > > drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/sdio.h:68: > > I guess I have a bug in the script when it parses checkpatch output. >