Re: [PATCH v2] staging: sm750fb: rename 'proc_setBLANK'

[Kisub Choe <kisub.choe.0x1@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 03:52:53PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 10:49:24PM +0900, Kisub Choe wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 03:24:26PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 10:12:13PM +0900, Kisub Choe wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 04:26:10PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 11:15:55PM +0900, Kisub Choe wrote:
> > > > > > Rename 'proc_setBLANK' to 'proc_setBLANK' to
> > > > > 
> > > > > That doesn't rename anything :(
> > > > Rename 'proc_setBLANK' to 'proc_set_blank' to
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > conform with kernel style guidelines as reported by checkpatch.pl
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > CHECK: Avoid CamelCase: <proc_setBLANK>
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Kisub Choe <kisub.choe.0x1@gmail.com>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > >  drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.c | 4 ++--
> > > > > >  drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.h | 2 +-
> > > > > >  2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.c b/drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.c
> > > > > > index 1d929aca399c..bb2ade6030c2 100644
> > > > > > --- a/drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.c
> > > > > > +++ b/drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.c
> > > > > > @@ -577,7 +577,7 @@ static int lynxfb_ops_blank(int blank, struct fb_info *info)
> > > > > >  	pr_debug("blank = %d.\n", blank);
> > > > > >  	par = info->par;
> > > > > >  	output = &par->output;
> > > > > > -	return output->proc_setBLANK(output, blank);
> > > > > > +	return output->proc_set_blank(output, blank);
> > > > > >  }
> > > > > >  
> > > > > >  static int sm750fb_set_drv(struct lynxfb_par *par)
> > > > > > @@ -605,7 +605,7 @@ static int sm750fb_set_drv(struct lynxfb_par *par)
> > > > > >  	crtc->ypanstep = 1;
> > > > > >  	crtc->ywrapstep = 0;
> > > > > >  
> > > > > > -	output->proc_setBLANK = (sm750_dev->revid == SM750LE_REVISION_ID) ?
> > > > > > +	output->proc_set_blank = (sm750_dev->revid == SM750LE_REVISION_ID) ?
> > > > > >  				 hw_sm750le_set_blank : hw_sm750_set_blank;
> > > > > 
> > > > > Why do we even need this function pointer?  Why not just do the check
> > > > > above when it is called instead of this indirection?
> > > > > 
> > > > > thanks,
> > > > > 
> > > > > greg k-h
> > > > 
> > > > Dear Greg,
> > > > 
> > > > Here is the updated patch with revised commit message. No code changes.
> > > 
> > > Please read the documentation for how to send an updated patch (hint, it
> > > needs to be a new version).
> > > 
> > > Also, see my comments above about what you should do here instead of
> > > just renaming the variable.  Please make that change which will remove
> > > the variable entirely.
> > > 
> > > thanks,
> > > 
> > > greg k-h
> > 
> > Thank you for feedback.
> > 
> > I was wondering if you could share additional feedback regarding
> > pros and cons calling a function directly based on the condition instead of the
> > current implementation?
> 
> I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader to complete :)
> 
> have fun!
> 
> greg k-h

Thank you!
Let me try to make changes and update.

Regards,
Kisub Choe.