Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] spi: add Intel Mid SSP driver | From | Joe Perches <> | Date | Tue, 29 Oct 2013 12:38:10 -0700 |
| |
On Tue, 2013-10-29 at 12:32 -0700, David Cohen wrote: > On 10/29/2013 11:35 AM, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Tue, 2013-10-29 at 11:30 -0700, David Cohen wrote: > >> On 10/29/2013 11:19 AM, Joe Perches wrote: > >>> On Tue, 2013-10-29 at 11:05 -0700, David Cohen wrote: > >>>> This patch adds driver for ssp spi interface on Intel Mid platform. > >>> A few simple notes: > >>> Please consider using checkpatch. > >> I did and got no warnings. But haven't used --strict option. > > Interesting. I thought there was a return (foo); > > statement that should have been marked, but I didn't > > actually run checkpatch. > > It seems odd checkpatch didn't catch it. I'll investigate.
No need. I believe I know why. checkpatch doesn't use "$balanced_parens" checks for return tests. I'm not sure it's worth fixing right now, but it could be tested as:
if ($^V && $^V ge 5.10.0 && $stat =~ /^.\s*return\s*$balanced_parens\s*;\s*$/)
> > static inline u32 is_rx_fifo_empty(struct ssp_drv_context *sspc) > > +{ > > + return ((read_SSSR(sspc->ioaddr) & SSSR_RNE) == 0); > > +} > > This could be bool too > u32 seems unusual, but I'd prefer 'int' if it's fine for you.
Anything is_<foo> that returns what seems to be true/false I think could be bool.
But, no worries, it's your code. Do what you think best.
| |