Fix the following coccicheck warning:
./drivers/spi/spi-bcm-qspi.c:884:5-34: WARNING: Comparison to bool
Signed-off-by: YANG LI <[email protected]>
Reported-by: Abaci Robot<[email protected]>
---
drivers/spi/spi-bcm-qspi.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-bcm-qspi.c b/drivers/spi/spi-bcm-qspi.c
index c028446..707fe3a 100644
--- a/drivers/spi/spi-bcm-qspi.c
+++ b/drivers/spi/spi-bcm-qspi.c
@@ -881,7 +881,7 @@ static int bcm_qspi_bspi_exec_mem_op(struct spi_device *spi,
* when using flex mode we need to send
* the upper address byte to bspi
*/
- if (bcm_qspi_bspi_ver_three(qspi) == false) {
+ if (!bcm_qspi_bspi_ver_three(qspi)) {
addr = from & 0xff000000;
bcm_qspi_write(qspi, BSPI,
BSPI_BSPI_FLASH_UPPER_ADDR_BYTE, addr);
--
1.8.3.1
On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 17:26:29 +0800, YANG LI wrote:
> Fix the following coccicheck warning:
> ./drivers/spi/spi-bcm-qspi.c:884:5-34: WARNING: Comparison to bool
Applied to
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/broonie/spi.git for-next
Thanks!
[1/1] spi: spi-bcm-qspi: style: Simplify bool comparison
commit: 6650ab2a44268af8d24995d28ae199b57b2ebff8
All being well this means that it will be integrated into the linux-next
tree (usually sometime in the next 24 hours) and sent to Linus during
the next merge window (or sooner if it is a bug fix), however if
problems are discovered then the patch may be dropped or reverted.
You may get further e-mails resulting from automated or manual testing
and review of the tree, please engage with people reporting problems and
send followup patches addressing any issues that are reported if needed.
If any updates are required or you are submitting further changes they
should be sent as incremental updates against current git, existing
patches will not be replaced.
Please add any relevant lists and maintainers to the CCs when replying
to this mail.
Thanks,
Mark
On 1/11/2021 8:29 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 17:26:29 +0800, YANG LI wrote:
>> Fix the following coccicheck warning:
>> ./drivers/spi/spi-bcm-qspi.c:884:5-34: WARNING: Comparison to bool
>
> Applied to
>
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/broonie/spi.git for-next
>
> Thanks!
>
> [1/1] spi: spi-bcm-qspi: style: Simplify bool comparison
> commit: 6650ab2a44268af8d24995d28ae199b57b2ebff8
I don't think that "style: " is a subject prefix that is used commonly
and it certainly should not belong in a commit subject. Mark can you
please people at least 10-12 hours to review changes before applying
them? This one is trivial except the commit subject does not match
previous changes done to this file and it should have been fixed.
--
Florian
On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 08:41:19AM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> > [1/1] spi: spi-bcm-qspi: style: Simplify bool comparison
> > commit: 6650ab2a44268af8d24995d28ae199b57b2ebff8
> I don't think that "style: " is a subject prefix that is used commonly
> and it certainly should not belong in a commit subject. Mark can you
> please people at least 10-12 hours to review changes before applying
> them? This one is trivial except the commit subject does not match
> previous changes done to this file and it should have been fixed.
Honestly for super trivial stuff like this I'm not sure it's a useful
use of anyone's time to police this sort of stuff aggressively, it's
after the prefixes that matter so I saw it easily and I'm having a hard
time caring that it happens to be done as a prefix rather than saying
style somewhere else in the subject.
I will generally hold off for longer with these trivial patches on
things where I expect to see some review but that's felt a bit patchy
with the Broadcom drivers.
On 1/11/21 9:05 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 08:41:19AM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>
>>> [1/1] spi: spi-bcm-qspi: style: Simplify bool comparison
>>> commit: 6650ab2a44268af8d24995d28ae199b57b2ebff8
>
>> I don't think that "style: " is a subject prefix that is used commonly
>> and it certainly should not belong in a commit subject. Mark can you
>> please people at least 10-12 hours to review changes before applying
>> them? This one is trivial except the commit subject does not match
>> previous changes done to this file and it should have been fixed.
>
> Honestly for super trivial stuff like this I'm not sure it's a useful
> use of anyone's time to police this sort of stuff aggressively, it's
> after the prefixes that matter so I saw it easily and I'm having a hard
> time caring that it happens to be done as a prefix rather than saying
> style somewhere else in the subject.
That sounds fair, however it does look like people who submit trivial
patches are typically the ones that also tend not to follow prior
commits to the same file, and given the patch is trivial, enforcing a
consistent subject sort of offsets the less amount of time spent in
reviewing the patch.
>
> I will generally hold off for longer with these trivial patches on
> things where I expect to see some review but that's felt a bit patchy
> with the Broadcom drivers.
>
OK, we will try to be more reactive then, Kamal is in GMT-0500 and I am
GMT-0800 so it make take a bit of time for us to get to our review backlog.
Thanks!
--
Florian
On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 09:21:11AM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> On 1/11/21 9:05 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > Honestly for super trivial stuff like this I'm not sure it's a useful
> > use of anyone's time to police this sort of stuff aggressively, it's
> > after the prefixes that matter so I saw it easily and I'm having a hard
> > time caring that it happens to be done as a prefix rather than saying
> > style somewhere else in the subject.
> That sounds fair, however it does look like people who submit trivial
> patches are typically the ones that also tend not to follow prior
> commits to the same file, and given the patch is trivial, enforcing a
> consistent subject sort of offsets the less amount of time spent in
> reviewing the patch.
Yeah, I do tend to moan if the commonly used prefixes aren't there but
I tend not to worry about anything after that.
> > I will generally hold off for longer with these trivial patches on
> > things where I expect to see some review but that's felt a bit patchy
> > with the Broadcom drivers.
> OK, we will try to be more reactive then, Kamal is in GMT-0500 and I am
> GMT-0800 so it make take a bit of time for us to get to our review backlog.
To be clear it's more that if there's generally a review of any patch
within say a week or a few days or something then I'll hold off until it
materializes but if it's likely to time out then I'll tend to just go
ahead immediately.