Re: [PATCH v4 01/16] drm: exynos/dp: fix code style
From: Yakir Yang
Date: Thu Sep 03 2015 - 01:33:41 EST
Hi Krzysztof,
å 09/03/2015 01:08 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski åé:
On 03.09.2015 14:04, Yakir Yang wrote:
Hi Krzysztof,
å 09/03/2015 08:21 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski åé:
On 01.09.2015 14:46, Yakir Yang wrote:
After run "checkpatch.pl -f --subjective" command, I see there
are lots of alignment problem in exynos_dp driver, so let just
fix them.
Hi,
Warnings from checkpatch are not a reason for a commit. Reason for a
commit could be for example an unreadable code, violation of
coding-style leading to decrease in code maintainability or just
improving the code readability so it will be easier to review and
maintain it.
You do not make commits because some tool tells you that. We do not
listen to machines :) ... If that would be the case, the commit could be
made automatically, without human interaction. Such automated commit
could be even easily tested by the machine by comparing object files.
Especially that you enabled "subjective" rule. This is not a valid
motivation for a commit.
Please rephrase this to sensible reason and convince that change is
worth the effort.
Oh, nice, thanks for your remind. I would rephrase the commit.
- Take Romain suggest, rebase on linux-next branch
That comment seems unrelated to the commit. Please remove it.
Done,
Signed-off-by: Yakir Yang <ykk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
Changes in v4: None
Changes in v3: None
Changes in v2:
- Take Joe Preches advise, improved commit message more readable, and
avoid using some uncommon style like bellow:
- retval = exynos_dp_read_bytes_from_i2c(...
...)
+ retval =
+ exynos_dp_read_bytes_from_i2c(......);
drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_dp_core.c | 226
++++++++++++++++----------------
drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_dp_core.h | 54 ++++----
drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_dp_reg.c | 106 +++++++--------
3 files changed, 188 insertions(+), 198 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_dp_core.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_dp_core.c
index d66ade0..266f7f7 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_dp_core.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_dp_core.c
@@ -115,8 +115,8 @@ static int exynos_dp_read_edid(struct
exynos_dp_device *dp)
/* Read Extension Flag, Number of 128-byte EDID extension
blocks */
retval = exynos_dp_read_byte_from_i2c(dp, I2C_EDID_DEVICE_ADDR,
- EDID_EXTENSION_FLAG,
- &extend_block);
+ EDID_EXTENSION_FLAG,
+ &extend_block);
if (retval)
return retval;
@@ -124,10 +124,11 @@ static int exynos_dp_read_edid(struct
exynos_dp_device *dp)
dev_dbg(dp->dev, "EDID data includes a single extension!\n");
/* Read EDID data */
- retval = exynos_dp_read_bytes_from_i2c(dp,
I2C_EDID_DEVICE_ADDR,
- EDID_HEADER_PATTERN,
- EDID_BLOCK_LENGTH,
- &edid[EDID_HEADER_PATTERN]);
+ retval = exynos_dp_read_bytes_from_i2c(
+ dp, I2C_EDID_DEVICE_ADDR,
+ EDID_HEADER_PATTERN,
+ EDID_BLOCK_LENGTH,
+ &edid[EDID_HEADER_PATTERN]);
if (retval != 0) {
dev_err(dp->dev, "EDID Read failed!\n");
return -EIO;
@@ -139,11 +140,11 @@ static int exynos_dp_read_edid(struct
exynos_dp_device *dp)
}
/* Read additional EDID data */
- retval = exynos_dp_read_bytes_from_i2c(dp,
- I2C_EDID_DEVICE_ADDR,
- EDID_BLOCK_LENGTH,
- EDID_BLOCK_LENGTH,
- &edid[EDID_BLOCK_LENGTH]);
+ retval = exynos_dp_read_bytes_from_i2c(
+ dp, I2C_EDID_DEVICE_ADDR,
+ EDID_BLOCK_LENGTH,
+ EDID_BLOCK_LENGTH,
+ &edid[EDID_BLOCK_LENGTH]);
if (retval != 0) {
dev_err(dp->dev, "EDID Read failed!\n");
return -EIO;
@@ -155,24 +156,22 @@ static int exynos_dp_read_edid(struct
exynos_dp_device *dp)
}
exynos_dp_read_byte_from_dpcd(dp, DP_TEST_REQUEST,
- &test_vector);
+ &test_vector);
if (test_vector & DP_TEST_LINK_EDID_READ) {
- exynos_dp_write_byte_to_dpcd(dp,
- DP_TEST_EDID_CHECKSUM,
+ exynos_dp_write_byte_to_dpcd(
+ dp, DP_TEST_EDID_CHECKSUM,
edid[EDID_BLOCK_LENGTH + EDID_CHECKSUM]);
- exynos_dp_write_byte_to_dpcd(dp,
- DP_TEST_RESPONSE,
+ exynos_dp_write_byte_to_dpcd(
+ dp, DP_TEST_RESPONSE,
DP_TEST_EDID_CHECKSUM_WRITE);
To me, missing argument after opening parenthesis, looks worse. I would
prefer:
exynos_dp_write_byte_to_dpcd(dp,
Why you moved the 'dp' argument to new line?
Hmm... Just like style tool indicate, no more warning after
that change.
For now, I would like to follow the original style, just improved
some obvious style problem. :-)
What was the checkpatch warning that said 'dp' has to move to new line?
I tried this and I don't see it.
checkpatch haven't remind me that put dp to new line would fix
this warning, this just come from my experiments. And I works,
no more warnings from checkpatch, so I toke this style.
- Yakir
Best regards,
Krzysztof
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/