[PATCH v3 0/4] staging:gpib:agilent_82350b: Code cleanup, spelling fixes

[PATCH v3 0/4] staging:gpib:agilent_82350b: Code cleanup, spelling fixes

[Ravi Kumar kairi]

From: Ravi Kumar Kairi <kumarkairiravi@gmail.com>

This patch series addresses the following changes:
1. Fixing spelling mistakes such as "havn't" → "haven't"
2. Removing unnecessary commented-out code
3. Cleaning up whitespace and formatting inconsistencies
4. Removing an empty line in if{} which was causing it to be read as a single line

These are minor changes aimed at improving code readability and maintainability.

I appreciate your time in reviewing this series. and I'm deeply sorry
for the spam beacuse I messed up last time I sumbiited
Thanks,
Ravi Kumar Kairi (4):
  staging:gpib:agilent_82350b: Fixed spelling error
  staging:gpib:agilent_82350b: Removed commented out code
  staging:gpib:agilent_82350b:Removed blank line
  staging:gpib:agilent_82350b: Fix Indent issue with block

 .../staging/gpib/agilent_82350b/agilent_82350b.c | 16 +---------------
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 15 deletions(-)

-- 
2.48.1

[PATCH v3 1/4] [PATCH V2 1/4] staging:gpib:agilent_82350b: Fixed spelling error

[Ravi Kumar kairi]

From: Ravi Kumar Kairi <kumarkairiravi@gmail.com>

fixed havn't -> haven't

Signed-off-by: Ravi Kumar Kairi <kumarkairiravi@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/staging/gpib/agilent_82350b/agilent_82350b.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/staging/gpib/agilent_82350b/agilent_82350b.c b/drivers/staging/gpib/agilent_82350b/agilent_82350b.c
index 5c62ec24fc..5a74a22015 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/gpib/agilent_82350b/agilent_82350b.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/gpib/agilent_82350b/agilent_82350b.c
@@ -121,7 +121,7 @@ static int agilent_82350b_accel_read(gpib_board_t *board, uint8_t *buffer, size_
 	writeb(DIRECTION_GPIB_TO_HOST, a_priv->gpib_base + SRAM_ACCESS_CONTROL_REG);
 	if (retval < 0)
 		return retval;
-	// read last bytes if we havn't received an END yet
+	// read last bytes if we haven't received an END yet
 	if (*end == 0) {
 		size_t num_bytes;
 		// try to make sure we holdoff after last byte read
-- 
2.48.1

[PATCH v3 2/4] [PATCH V2 2/4] staging:gpib:agilent_82350b: Removed commented out code

[Ravi Kumar kairi]

From: Ravi Kumar Kairi <kumarkairiravi@gmail.com>

Removed commented out debugging code to make code look cleaner as
spcified by TODO

Signed-off-by: Ravi Kumar Kairi <kumarkairiravi@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/staging/gpib/agilent_82350b/agilent_82350b.c | 9 ---------
 1 file changed, 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/staging/gpib/agilent_82350b/agilent_82350b.c b/drivers/staging/gpib/agilent_82350b/agilent_82350b.c
index 5a74a22015..7936c7285d 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/gpib/agilent_82350b/agilent_82350b.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/gpib/agilent_82350b/agilent_82350b.c
@@ -176,7 +176,6 @@ static int agilent_82350b_accel_write(gpib_board_t *board, uint8_t *buffer, size
 
 	event_status = read_and_clear_event_status(board);
 
-	//pr_info("ag_ac_wr: event status 0x%x tms state 0x%lx\n", event_status, tms_priv->state);
 
 #ifdef EXPERIMENTAL
 	pr_info("ag_ac_wr: wait for previous BO to complete if any\n");
@@ -190,13 +189,11 @@ static int agilent_82350b_accel_write(gpib_board_t *board, uint8_t *buffer, size
 		return retval;
 #endif
 
-	//pr_info("ag_ac_wr: sending first byte\n");
 	retval = agilent_82350b_write(board, buffer, 1, 0, &num_bytes);
 	*bytes_written += num_bytes;
 	if (retval < 0)
 		return retval;
 
-	//pr_info("ag_ac_wr: %ld bytes eoi %d tms state 0x%lx\n",length, send_eoi, tms_priv->state);
 
 	write_byte(tms_priv, tms_priv->imr0_bits & ~HR_BOIE, IMR0);
 	for (i = 1; i < fifotransferlength;) {
@@ -210,8 +207,6 @@ static int agilent_82350b_accel_write(gpib_board_t *board, uint8_t *buffer, size
 		}
 		writeb(ENABLE_TI_TO_SRAM, a_priv->gpib_base + SRAM_ACCESS_CONTROL_REG);
 
-		//pr_info("ag_ac_wr: send block: %d bytes tms 0x%lx\n", block_size,
-		// tms_priv->state);
 
 		if (agilent_82350b_fifo_is_halted(a_priv)) {
 			writeb(RESTART_STREAM_BIT, a_priv->gpib_base + STREAM_STATUS_REG);
@@ -226,7 +221,6 @@ static int agilent_82350b_accel_write(gpib_board_t *board, uint8_t *buffer, size
 						  test_bit(TIMO_NUM, &board->status));
 		writeb(0, a_priv->gpib_base + SRAM_ACCESS_CONTROL_REG);
 		num_bytes = block_size - read_transfer_counter(a_priv);
-		//pr_info("ag_ac_wr: sent  %ld bytes tms 0x%lx\n", num_bytes, tms_priv->state);
 
 		*bytes_written += num_bytes;
 		retval = translate_wait_return_value(board, retval);
@@ -238,8 +232,6 @@ static int agilent_82350b_accel_write(gpib_board_t *board, uint8_t *buffer, size
 		return retval;
 
 	if (send_eoi) {
-		//pr_info("ag_ac_wr: sending last byte with eoi byte no:   %d\n",
-		// fifotransferlength+1);
 
 		retval = agilent_82350b_write(board, buffer + fifotransferlength, 1, send_eoi,
 					      &num_bytes);
@@ -284,7 +276,6 @@ static irqreturn_t agilent_82350b_interrupt(int irq, void *arg)
 		tms9914_interrupt_have_status(board, &a_priv->tms9914_priv, tms9914_status1,
 					      tms9914_status2);
 	}
-//pr_info("event_status=0x%x s1 %x s2 %x\n", event_status,tms9914_status1,tms9914_status2);
 //write-clear status bits
 	if (event_status & (BUFFER_END_STATUS_BIT | TERM_COUNT_STATUS_BIT)) {
 		writeb(event_status & (BUFFER_END_STATUS_BIT | TERM_COUNT_STATUS_BIT),
-- 
2.48.1

Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] [PATCH V2 2/4] staging:gpib:agilent_82350b: Removed commented out code

[Dan Carpenter]

On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 04:00:36PM +0530, Ravi Kumar kairi wrote:
> From: Ravi Kumar Kairi <kumarkairiravi@gmail.com>
> 
> Removed commented out debugging code to make code look cleaner as
> spcified by TODO
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ravi Kumar Kairi <kumarkairiravi@gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/gpib/agilent_82350b/agilent_82350b.c | 9 ---------
>  1 file changed, 9 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/gpib/agilent_82350b/agilent_82350b.c b/drivers/staging/gpib/agilent_82350b/agilent_82350b.c
> index 5a74a22015..7936c7285d 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/gpib/agilent_82350b/agilent_82350b.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/gpib/agilent_82350b/agilent_82350b.c
> @@ -176,7 +176,6 @@ static int agilent_82350b_accel_write(gpib_board_t *board, uint8_t *buffer, size
>  
>  	event_status = read_and_clear_event_status(board);
>  
> -	//pr_info("ag_ac_wr: event status 0x%x tms state 0x%lx\n", event_status, tms_priv->state);
>  

Same comments as for v2.

You're not supposed to mix delete comments with delete duplicate blank
lines but at the same time, you can't introduce NEW double blank line
warnings.

regards,
dan carpenter

Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] [PATCH V2 2/4] staging:gpib:agilent_82350b: Removed commented out code

[Dan Carpenter]

On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 07:09:23PM +0530, Ravi Kumar Kairi wrote:
> So should I just do the whole deleting comment thing in one go? Instead of
> first deleted comment and then deleted blank space?

Hm...  I had to check.  All the issues addressed in patch 3 were
introduced by patch 2.  So, yes, combine patch 2 and 3.

regards,
dan carpenter

[PATCH v3 3/4] [PATCH V2 3/4] staging:gpib:agilent_82350b:Removed blank line

[Ravi Kumar kairi]

From: Ravi Kumar Kairi <kumarkairiravi@gmail.com>

removed few empty lines that were causing checkpatch script warnings

Signed-off-by: Ravi Kumar Kairi <kumarkairiravi@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/staging/gpib/agilent_82350b/agilent_82350b.c | 4 ----
 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/staging/gpib/agilent_82350b/agilent_82350b.c b/drivers/staging/gpib/agilent_82350b/agilent_82350b.c
index 7936c7285d..b6871eb3c8 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/gpib/agilent_82350b/agilent_82350b.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/gpib/agilent_82350b/agilent_82350b.c
@@ -176,7 +176,6 @@ static int agilent_82350b_accel_write(gpib_board_t *board, uint8_t *buffer, size
 
 	event_status = read_and_clear_event_status(board);
 
-
 #ifdef EXPERIMENTAL
 	pr_info("ag_ac_wr: wait for previous BO to complete if any\n");
 	retval = wait_event_interruptible(board->wait,
@@ -193,8 +192,6 @@ static int agilent_82350b_accel_write(gpib_board_t *board, uint8_t *buffer, size
 	*bytes_written += num_bytes;
 	if (retval < 0)
 		return retval;
-
-
 	write_byte(tms_priv, tms_priv->imr0_bits & ~HR_BOIE, IMR0);
 	for (i = 1; i < fifotransferlength;) {
 		clear_bit(WRITE_READY_BN, &tms_priv->state);
@@ -207,7 +204,6 @@ static int agilent_82350b_accel_write(gpib_board_t *board, uint8_t *buffer, size
 		}
 		writeb(ENABLE_TI_TO_SRAM, a_priv->gpib_base + SRAM_ACCESS_CONTROL_REG);
 
-
 		if (agilent_82350b_fifo_is_halted(a_priv)) {
 			writeb(RESTART_STREAM_BIT, a_priv->gpib_base + STREAM_STATUS_REG);
 			//	pr_info("ag_ac_wr: needed restart\n");
-- 
2.48.1

Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] [PATCH V2 3/4] staging:gpib:agilent_82350b:Removed blank line

[Greg KH]

On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 04:00:37PM +0530, Ravi Kumar kairi wrote:
> From: Ravi Kumar Kairi <kumarkairiravi@gmail.com>
> 
> removed few empty lines that were causing checkpatch script warnings
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ravi Kumar Kairi <kumarkairiravi@gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/gpib/agilent_82350b/agilent_82350b.c | 4 ----
>  1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/gpib/agilent_82350b/agilent_82350b.c b/drivers/staging/gpib/agilent_82350b/agilent_82350b.c
> index 7936c7285d..b6871eb3c8 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/gpib/agilent_82350b/agilent_82350b.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/gpib/agilent_82350b/agilent_82350b.c
> @@ -176,7 +176,6 @@ static int agilent_82350b_accel_write(gpib_board_t *board, uint8_t *buffer, size
>  
>  	event_status = read_and_clear_event_status(board);
>  
> -
>  #ifdef EXPERIMENTAL
>  	pr_info("ag_ac_wr: wait for previous BO to complete if any\n");
>  	retval = wait_event_interruptible(board->wait,
> @@ -193,8 +192,6 @@ static int agilent_82350b_accel_write(gpib_board_t *board, uint8_t *buffer, size
>  	*bytes_written += num_bytes;
>  	if (retval < 0)
>  		return retval;
> -
> -

Why did you remove both lines here?  One is fine.

And your subject line needs an extra ' ' in it, right?

thanks,

greg k-h

[PATCH v3 4/4] [PATCH V2 4/4] staging:gpib:agilent_82350b: Fix Indent issue with block

[Ravi Kumar kairi]

From: Ravi Kumar Kairi <kumarkairiravi@gmail.com>

There was a empty line, which was causing the checkpatch script to think
it's a single line statment, after removing the empty line it's no
longer asking to check that line.

Signed-off-by: Ravi Kumar Kairi <kumarkairiravi@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/staging/gpib/agilent_82350b/agilent_82350b.c | 1 -
 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/staging/gpib/agilent_82350b/agilent_82350b.c b/drivers/staging/gpib/agilent_82350b/agilent_82350b.c
index b6871eb3c8..1d644d000a 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/gpib/agilent_82350b/agilent_82350b.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/gpib/agilent_82350b/agilent_82350b.c
@@ -228,7 +228,6 @@ static int agilent_82350b_accel_write(gpib_board_t *board, uint8_t *buffer, size
 		return retval;
 
 	if (send_eoi) {
-
 		retval = agilent_82350b_write(board, buffer + fifotransferlength, 1, send_eoi,
 					      &num_bytes);
 		*bytes_written += num_bytes;
-- 
2.48.1

Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] [PATCH V2 4/4] staging:gpib:agilent_82350b: Fix Indent issue with block

[Greg KH]

On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 04:00:38PM +0530, Ravi Kumar kairi wrote:
> From: Ravi Kumar Kairi <kumarkairiravi@gmail.com>
> 
> There was a empty line, which was causing the checkpatch script to think
> it's a single line statment, after removing the empty line it's no
> longer asking to check that line.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ravi Kumar Kairi <kumarkairiravi@gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/gpib/agilent_82350b/agilent_82350b.c | 1 -
>  1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/gpib/agilent_82350b/agilent_82350b.c b/drivers/staging/gpib/agilent_82350b/agilent_82350b.c
> index b6871eb3c8..1d644d000a 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/gpib/agilent_82350b/agilent_82350b.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/gpib/agilent_82350b/agilent_82350b.c
> @@ -228,7 +228,6 @@ static int agilent_82350b_accel_write(gpib_board_t *board, uint8_t *buffer, size
>  		return retval;
>  
>  	if (send_eoi) {
> -
>  		retval = agilent_82350b_write(board, buffer + fifotransferlength, 1, send_eoi,
>  					      &num_bytes);
>  		*bytes_written += num_bytes;

The subject line is really odd as this change has nothing to do with
indentation :(

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] [PATCH V2 4/4] staging:gpib:agilent_82350b: Fix Indent issue with block

[Ravi Kumar Kairi]

On 2/17/25 4:09 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 04:00:38PM +0530, Ravi Kumar kairi wrote:
>> From: Ravi Kumar Kairi <kumarkairiravi@gmail.com>
>>
>> There was a empty line, which was causing the checkpatch script to think
>> it's a single line statment, after removing the empty line it's no
>> longer asking to check that line.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ravi Kumar Kairi <kumarkairiravi@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/staging/gpib/agilent_82350b/agilent_82350b.c | 1 -
>>   1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/gpib/agilent_82350b/agilent_82350b.c b/drivers/staging/gpib/agilent_82350b/agilent_82350b.c
>> index b6871eb3c8..1d644d000a 100644
>> --- a/drivers/staging/gpib/agilent_82350b/agilent_82350b.c
>> +++ b/drivers/staging/gpib/agilent_82350b/agilent_82350b.c
>> @@ -228,7 +228,6 @@ static int agilent_82350b_accel_write(gpib_board_t *board, uint8_t *buffer, size
>>   		return retval;
>>   
>>   	if (send_eoi) {
>> -
>>   		retval = agilent_82350b_write(board, buffer + fifotransferlength, 1, send_eoi,
>>   					      &num_bytes);
>>   		*bytes_written += num_bytes;
> The subject line is really odd as this change has nothing to do with
> indentation :(
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
Yes, I now realize it  ;-; and will do better next time, btw I came here 
from your foss conf video on YouTube

Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] staging:gpib:agilent_82350b: Code cleanup, spelling fixes

[Greg KH]

On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 04:00:34PM +0530, Ravi Kumar kairi wrote:
> From: Ravi Kumar Kairi <kumarkairiravi@gmail.com>
> 
> This patch series addresses the following changes:
> 1. Fixing spelling mistakes such as "havn't" → "haven't"
> 2. Removing unnecessary commented-out code
> 3. Cleaning up whitespace and formatting inconsistencies
> 4. Removing an empty line in if{} which was causing it to be read as a single line
> 
> These are minor changes aimed at improving code readability and maintainability.
> 
> I appreciate your time in reviewing this series. and I'm deeply sorry
> for the spam beacuse I messed up last time I sumbiited
> Thanks,
> Ravi Kumar Kairi (4):
>   staging:gpib:agilent_82350b: Fixed spelling error
>   staging:gpib:agilent_82350b: Removed commented out code
>   staging:gpib:agilent_82350b:Removed blank line
>   staging:gpib:agilent_82350b: Fix Indent issue with block
> 
>  .../staging/gpib/agilent_82350b/agilent_82350b.c | 16 +---------------
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 15 deletions(-)
> 
> -- 
> 2.48.1
> 
> 

Hi,

This is the friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman.  You have sent him
a patch that has triggered this response.  He used to manually respond
to these common problems, but in order to save his sanity (he kept
writing the same thing over and over, yet to different people), I was
created.  Hopefully you will not take offence and will fix the problem
in your patch and resubmit it so that it can be accepted into the Linux
kernel tree.

You are receiving this message because of the following common error(s)
as indicated below:

- This looks like a new version of a previously submitted patch, but you
  did not list below the --- line any changes from the previous version.
  Please read the section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the
  kernel file, Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst for what
  needs to be done here to properly describe this.

If you wish to discuss this problem further, or you have questions about
how to resolve this issue, please feel free to respond to this email and
Greg will reply once he has dug out from the pending patches received
from other developers.

thanks,

greg k-h's patch email bot