[PATCH] iio: adc: Fix coding style violations

[PATCH] iio: adc: Fix coding style violations

[Michal Simek]

From: Sai Krishna Potthuri <lakshmi.sai.krishna.potthuri@xilinx.com>

This patch fix following checkpatch warnings in xadc driver
1. Prefer 'unsigned int' to bare use of 'unsigned'.
2. else is not generally useful after a break or return.
3. function definition argument 'struct xadc *' should also
have an identifier name.

Signed-off-by: Sai Krishna Potthuri <lakshmis@xilinx.com>
Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <michal.simek@xilinx.com>
---

 drivers/iio/adc/xilinx-xadc-events.c | 38 +++++++++++++++++-------------------
 drivers/iio/adc/xilinx-xadc.h        |  2 +-
 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/xilinx-xadc-events.c b/drivers/iio/adc/xilinx-xadc-events.c
index 6d5c2a6f4e6e..dc0670308253 100644
--- a/drivers/iio/adc/xilinx-xadc-events.c
+++ b/drivers/iio/adc/xilinx-xadc-events.c
@@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ void xadc_handle_events(struct iio_dev *indio_dev, unsigned long events)
 		xadc_handle_event(indio_dev, i);
 }
 
-static unsigned xadc_get_threshold_offset(const struct iio_chan_spec *chan,
+static unsigned int xadc_get_threshold_offset(const struct iio_chan_spec *chan,
 	enum iio_event_direction dir)
 {
 	unsigned int offset;
@@ -90,26 +90,24 @@ static unsigned xadc_get_threshold_offset(const struct iio_chan_spec *chan,
 
 static unsigned int xadc_get_alarm_mask(const struct iio_chan_spec *chan)
 {
-	if (chan->type == IIO_TEMP) {
+	if (chan->type == IIO_TEMP)
 		return XADC_ALARM_OT_MASK;
-	} else {
-		switch (chan->channel) {
-		case 0:
-			return XADC_ALARM_VCCINT_MASK;
-		case 1:
-			return XADC_ALARM_VCCAUX_MASK;
-		case 2:
-			return XADC_ALARM_VCCBRAM_MASK;
-		case 3:
-			return XADC_ALARM_VCCPINT_MASK;
-		case 4:
-			return XADC_ALARM_VCCPAUX_MASK;
-		case 5:
-			return XADC_ALARM_VCCODDR_MASK;
-		default:
-			/* We will never get here */
-			return 0;
-		}
+	switch (chan->channel) {
+	case 0:
+		return XADC_ALARM_VCCINT_MASK;
+	case 1:
+		return XADC_ALARM_VCCAUX_MASK;
+	case 2:
+		return XADC_ALARM_VCCBRAM_MASK;
+	case 3:
+		return XADC_ALARM_VCCPINT_MASK;
+	case 4:
+		return XADC_ALARM_VCCPAUX_MASK;
+	case 5:
+		return XADC_ALARM_VCCODDR_MASK;
+	default:
+		/* We will never get here */
+		return 0;
 	}
 }
 
diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/xilinx-xadc.h b/drivers/iio/adc/xilinx-xadc.h
index f6f081965647..9069396d7622 100644
--- a/drivers/iio/adc/xilinx-xadc.h
+++ b/drivers/iio/adc/xilinx-xadc.h
@@ -76,7 +76,7 @@ struct xadc_ops {
 	int (*setup)(struct platform_device *pdev, struct iio_dev *indio_dev,
 			int irq);
 	void (*update_alarm)(struct xadc *, unsigned int);
-	unsigned long (*get_dclk_rate)(struct xadc *);
+	unsigned long (*get_dclk_rate)(struct xadc *xadc);
 	irqreturn_t (*interrupt_handler)(int, void *);
 
 	unsigned int flags;
-- 
1.9.1

Re: [PATCH] iio: adc: Fix coding style violations

[Joe Perches]

On Tue, 2017-08-08 at 14:04 +0200, Michal Simek wrote:
> From: Sai Krishna Potthuri <lakshmi.sai.krishna.potthuri@xilinx.com>
[]
> diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/xilinx-xadc.h b/drivers/iio/adc/xilinx-xadc.h
[]
> @@ -76,7 +76,7 @@ struct xadc_ops {
>  	int (*setup)(struct platform_device *pdev, struct iio_dev *indio_dev,
>  			int irq);
>  	void (*update_alarm)(struct xadc *, unsigned int);
> -	unsigned long (*get_dclk_rate)(struct xadc *);
> +	unsigned long (*get_dclk_rate)(struct xadc *xadc);
>  	irqreturn_t (*interrupt_handler)(int, void *);

Doesn't it seem odd to you that the lines above and below
have the same form?

checkpatch is an imperfect tool.
It will always be imperfect.
Please use your eyes and mind too.

Re: [PATCH] iio: adc: Fix coding style violations

[Michal Simek]

On 8.8.2017 17:52, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-08-08 at 14:04 +0200, Michal Simek wrote:
>> From: Sai Krishna Potthuri <lakshmi.sai.krishna.potthuri@xilinx.com>
> []
>> diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/xilinx-xadc.h b/drivers/iio/adc/xilinx-xadc.h
> []
>> @@ -76,7 +76,7 @@ struct xadc_ops {
>>  	int (*setup)(struct platform_device *pdev, struct iio_dev *indio_dev,
>>  			int irq);
>>  	void (*update_alarm)(struct xadc *, unsigned int);
>> -	unsigned long (*get_dclk_rate)(struct xadc *);
>> +	unsigned long (*get_dclk_rate)(struct xadc *xadc);
>>  	irqreturn_t (*interrupt_handler)(int, void *);
> 
> Doesn't it seem odd to you that the lines above and below
> have the same form?
> 
> checkpatch is an imperfect tool.
> It will always be imperfect.
> Please use your eyes and mind too.

You are right. I have missed that in internal review. Fixed in v2.

Thanks,
Michal