Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] iio:potentiostat:lmp91000: solve codestyle WARNINGs and CHECKs | From | Lucas Oshiro <> | Date | Sat, 9 Feb 2019 22:05:11 -0200 |
| |
Thanks! I'll send those changes in my next patchset.
On 02/02/2019 08:00, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > On Fri, 1 Feb 2019 12:29:11 -0200 > LSO <lucasseikioshiro@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Thanks for the review! >> >> On 29/01/2019 20:48, Joe Perches wrote: >>> On Tue, 2019-01-29 at 16:36 -0200, Lucas Oshiro wrote: >>>> Solve most of the checkpatch.pl WARNINGs and CHECKs on lmp9100.c. They >>>> are the following: >>>> >>>> lmp91000.c:116: CHECK: Unnecessary parentheses around 'state != channel' >>>> lmp91000.c:116: CHECK: Unnecessary parentheses around 'channel == LMP91000_REG_MODECN_TEMP' >>>> lmp91000.c:214: CHECK: braces {} should be used on all arms of this statement >>>> lmp91000.c:216: CHECK: Unbalanced braces around else statement >>>> lmp91000.c:258: WARNING: line over 80 characters >>>> lmp91000.c:279: CHECK: Please don't use multiple blank lines >>> >>> Some will say this is too many things to do at once. >>> I think it's mostly fine, but there are a few nits >>> that also could use fixing. > > Always a case of personal judgement. > I agree that this one 'just' falls on the side of not too many things for one > patch. If there had been a few more items then it would have been too much. > > I would also have been happy with it broken out. If I had been spinning > it myself, I would have done it as 3 patches in pairs from your list > above with the last one grouping the white space changes. > > The test inversion below is also stretching beyond simple style > so probably should be broken out. > >>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/iio/potentiostat/lmp91000.c b/drivers/iio/potentiostat/lmp91000.c >>> [] >>>> @@ -211,9 +211,9 @@ static int lmp91000_read_config(struct lmp91000_data *data) >>>> >>>> ret = of_property_read_u32(np, "ti,tia-gain-ohm", &val); >>>> if (ret) { >>>> - if (of_property_read_bool(np, "ti,external-tia-resistor")) >>>> + if (of_property_read_bool(np, "ti,external-tia-resistor")) { >>>> val = 0; >>>> - else { >>>> + } else { >>>> dev_err(dev, "no ti,tia-gain-ohm defined"); >>>> return ret; >>>> } >>> >>> This could use inverting the test >>> >>> if (ret) { >>> if (!of_property_read_bool(...)) { >>> dev_err(dev, "no ti,ti-gain-ohm defined\n"); >>> return ret; >>> } >>> val = 0; >>> } >>> >> Thanks for the suggestion, I'll do that in the next version. >> >>> Also the dev_err is missing a '\n' termination >> >> My aim in this patch was only solve style problems, but I >> can put that missing '\n' too. Do you think it could be done >> in the same commit or it's a better idea do it in another >> commit and send both as a patchset? > > Separate commit given as you say it's not style and this one has > enough different things in it already! > > Thanks, > > Jonathan > >>> >>> >
| |