From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wi0-x233.google.com (mail-wi0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 798891A06A7 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 21:25:17 +1000 (AEST) Received: by wicmv11 with SMTP id mv11so175145380wic.0 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 04:25:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <55B76634.6050505@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:23:32 +0200 From: Jacek Anaszewski MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Vasant Hegde CC: linux-leds@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, j.anaszewski@samsung.com, mpe@ellerman.id.au, rpurdie@rpsys.net, cooloney@gmail.com, khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com, j.anaszewski81@gmail.com, arnd@arndb.de, stewart@linux.vnet.ibm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 3/3] leds/powernv: Add driver for PowerNV platform References: <1437801670-23705-1-git-send-email-hegdevasant@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1437801670-23705-4-git-send-email-hegdevasant@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <55B5540B.1000301@gmail.com> <55B5A853.3080909@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <55B72369.5040102@gmail.com> <1438078495.7562.135.camel@kernel.crashing.org> In-Reply-To: <1438078495.7562.135.camel@kernel.crashing.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 28.07.2015 12:14, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Tue, 2015-07-28 at 08:38 +0200, Jacek Anaszewski wrote: >>>>> + /* Register the classdev */ >>>>> + rc = devm_led_classdev_register(dev, &powernv_led->cdev); >>>>> + if (rc) { >>>>> + dev_err(dev, "%s: Classdev registration failed for %s\n", >>>>> + __func__, powernv_led->cdev.name); >>>>> + } >> >> Braces are not needed here, > > Putting my old maintainer hat on for a minute ... this is serious nit > picking :-) > > Arguably, the function being multi-line, the braces do make the code > more readable. This is a matter of taste which in such as case > which isn't a blatant violation of an important rule should be left to > the choice of the code implementor/maintainer. I will not insist as checkpatch.pl also doesn't complain about that. Vasant, please ignore my remark then. -- Best Regards, Jacek Anaszewski