Re: [PATCH v3] staging: greybus: merge split lines

Alison Schofield
2023-03-21T16:35:50Z

On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 09:21:35PM +0500, Khadija Kamran wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 01:26:33PM +0500, Khadija Kamran wrote:
> > If condition and spin_unlock_...() call is split into two lines, merge
> > them to form a single line.
> >
> > Suggested-by: Deepak R Varma drv@mailo.com
> > Signed-off-by: Khadija Kamran <kamrankhadijadj@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >
> > Changes in v3:
> > - Removing tab to fix line length results in a new checkpatch warning,
> > so let the fix length be as it is.
> > Changes in v2:
> > - Rephrased he subject and description
> > - Merged if_condition() and spin_unlock...() into one line
> > - Link to patch:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/outreachy/ZAusnKYVTGvO5zoi@khadija-virtual-machine/
> >
> > Link to first patch:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/outreachy/ZAtkW6g6DwPg%2FpDp@khadija-virtual-machine/
> >
> > drivers/staging/greybus/arche-platform.c | 6 ++----
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/greybus/arche-platform.c b/drivers/staging/greybus/arche-platform.c
> > index fcbd5f71eff2..6890710afdfc 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/greybus/arche-platform.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/greybus/arche-platform.c
> > @@ -176,12 +176,10 @@ static irqreturn_t arche_platform_wd_irq(int irq, void *devid)
> > * Check we are not in middle of irq thread
> > * already
> > */
> > - if (arche_pdata->wake_detect_state !=
> > - WD_STATE_COLDBOOT_START) {
> > + if (arche_pdata->wake_detect_state != WD_STATE_COLDBOOT_START) {
> > arche_platform_set_wake_detect_state(arche_pdata,
> > WD_STATE_COLDBOOT_TRIG);
> > - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&arche_pdata->wake_lock,
> > - flags);
> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&arche_pdata->wake_lock, flags);
> > return IRQ_WAKE_THREAD;
> > }
> > }
> > --
> > 2.34.1
> >
>
> Hey Outreachy Mentors,
>
> Kindly take a look at this patch and let me know if it is okay to work
> on this file or should I look for other cleanup patches.

Hi Khadija,

I thought you were abandoning *this* patch, and doing a refactor on
the function. I'd expect that would be a new patch, probably a
patchset. One where you align the work based on the 'rising' and
'falling' detection, and perhaps a second patch that centralizes
the unlock and return.

Is there some other concern with working on this file?

Alison

>
> Thank you for your time.
> Regards,
> Khadija
>
>