Messages in this thread | | | From | Dong Aisheng-B29396 <> | Subject | RE: [PATCH 1/1] dt: fix some code indent issue in of.h | Date | Wed, 21 Dec 2011 02:57:58 +0000 |
| |
> -----Original Message----- > From: Rob Herring [mailto:robherring2@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 2:42 AM > To: Dong Aisheng-B29396 > Cc: devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux- > arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; grant.likely@secretlab.ca; Guo Shawn-R65073 > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] dt: fix some code indent issue in of.h > Importance: High > > On 12/20/2011 12:10 PM, Dong Aisheng wrote: > > From: Dong Aisheng <dong.aisheng@linaro.org> > > > > Checkpatch script will report some warnings for the old coding style: > > WARNING: suspect code indent for conditional statements (8, 0) > > for (child = of_get_next_child(parent, NULL); child != NULL; \ > > [...] > > +static inline int of_get_child_count(const struct device_node *np) > > > > Signed-off-by: Dong Aisheng <dong.aisheng@linaro.org> > > Cc: Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca> > > Cc: Rob Herring <rob.herring@calxeda.com> > > --- > > include/linux/of.h | 12 ++++++------ > > 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/of.h b/include/linux/of.h index > > f1a490c..95dee0a 100644 > > --- a/include/linux/of.h > > +++ b/include/linux/of.h > > @@ -163,22 +163,22 @@ extern struct device_node *of_find_node_by_name(struct > device_node *from, > > const char *name); > > #define for_each_node_by_name(dn, name) \ > > for (dn = of_find_node_by_name(NULL, name); dn; \ > > - dn = of_find_node_by_name(dn, name)) > > + dn = of_find_node_by_name(dn, name)) > > extern struct device_node *of_find_node_by_type(struct device_node *from, > > const char *type); > > #define for_each_node_by_type(dn, type) \ > > for (dn = of_find_node_by_type(NULL, type); dn; \ > > - dn = of_find_node_by_type(dn, type)) > > + dn = of_find_node_by_type(dn, type)) > > extern struct device_node *of_find_compatible_node(struct device_node *from, > > const char *type, const char *compat); #define > > for_each_compatible_node(dn, type, compatible) \ > > for (dn = of_find_compatible_node(NULL, type, compatible); dn; \ > > - dn = of_find_compatible_node(dn, type, compatible)) > > + dn = of_find_compatible_node(dn, type, compatible)) > > extern struct device_node *of_find_matching_node(struct device_node *from, > > const struct of_device_id *matches); #define > > for_each_matching_node(dn, matches) \ > > for (dn = of_find_matching_node(NULL, matches); dn; \ > > - dn = of_find_matching_node(dn, matches)) > > + dn = of_find_matching_node(dn, matches)) > > extern struct device_node *of_find_node_by_path(const char *path); > > extern struct device_node *of_find_node_by_phandle(phandle handle); > > extern struct device_node *of_get_parent(const struct device_node > > *node); @@ -187,13 +187,13 @@ extern struct device_node > *of_get_next_child(const struct device_node *node, > > struct device_node *prev); > > #define for_each_child_of_node(parent, child) \ > > for (child = of_get_next_child(parent, NULL); child != NULL; \ > > - child = of_get_next_child(parent, child)) > > + child = of_get_next_child(parent, child)) > > > > extern struct device_node *of_find_node_with_property( > > struct device_node *from, const char *prop_name); #define > > for_each_node_with_property(dn, prop_name) \ > > for (dn = of_find_node_with_property(NULL, prop_name); dn; \ > > - dn = of_find_node_with_property(dn, prop_name)) > > + dn = of_find_node_with_property(dn, prop_name)) > > > > extern struct property *of_find_property(const struct device_node *np, > > const char *name, > > The old way looks fine to me and indenting like this is commonly used in the > kernel. > Yes, i was also ok without those annoying warning. Do you think if we need to fix the checkpatch.pl if the it is commonly used In the kernel?
Regards Dong Aisheng
| |