[U-Boot] [PATCH v2 1/5] usb:gadget:s5p USB Device Controller (UDC) implementation

[Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>]

On 10/10/2011 04:54 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Scott Wood,
> 
> In message <4E935BDC.7000109@freescale.com> you wrote:
>>
>>> Well, "user-visible strings" is definitely not the same thing as
>>> "debug print code", at least not for me.
>>
>> They're visible to a user that has #defined DEBUG.  They're something
>> one might want to grep on.  checkpatch.pl explicitly considers
> 
> Strings yes. Code no.
> 
>> At some point you might want to consider actually writing down your
>> interpretations of these things into a U-Boot coding style document, so
>> at least we don't have to guess.
> 
> There is not much of interpretion.  Please stop discussing just for
> the fun of it and switch on common sense.

It wasn't for the fun of it, it was missing context leading to a
misunderstanding of what you were complaining about.

> This is bad:
> 
> 			debug("This is a very, very long string just "
> 			      "to show what is meant by the CodingStyle "
> 			      "note about 'user-visible strings\n");
> 	
> But this is bad, too:
> 
> 				for (i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
> 					for (j = 0; j < 100; j++) {
> 						debug("f(i)=0x%08x, g(j)=0x%08x\n", some_function_doing_funny_things(i), some_other_function_doing_more_funny_things(j));
> 					}
> 				}
> 
> The first example is what the CodingStyle mentions: do not break
> "user-visible strings".
> 
> The second example should clearly be reformatted, at least as:
> 
> 				for (i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
> 					for (j = 0; j < 100; j++) {
> 						debug("f(i)=0x%08x, g(j)=0x%08x\n",
> 							some_function_doing_funny_things(i),
> 							some_other_function_doing_more_funny_things(j)
> 						);
> 					}
> 				}
> 
> or similar.
> 
> Agreed?

Yes.

-Scott