Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 13 Mar 2019 15:34:54 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
To:     Armando Miraglia <arma2ff0@gmail.com>
Cc:     neil@brown.name, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org,
        gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Armando Miraglia <armax@google.com>,
        linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org, sankalpnegi2310@gmail.com,
        matthias.bgg@gmail.com, sr@denx.de,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] spi: mediatek: Attempt to address style issues in
 spi-mt7621.c
Message-ID: <20190313123454.GB2202@kadam>
References: <20190313122403.248873-1-armax@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190313122403.248873-1-armax@google.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 01:24:04PM +0100, Armando Miraglia wrote:
> Running Lindent on the mt7621-spi.c file in drivers/staging I noticed that the
> file contained style issues. This change attempts to address such style
> problems.
> 

Don't run lindent.  I think checkpatch.pl has a --fix option that might
be better, but once the code is merged then our standard become much
higher for follow up patches.

> Signed-off-by: Armando Miraglia <armax@google.com>
> ---
> NOTE: resend this patch to include all mainteners listed by get_mantainers.pl.
>  drivers/staging/mt7621-spi/spi-mt7621.c | 27 +++++++++++++------------
>  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/mt7621-spi/spi-mt7621.c b/drivers/staging/mt7621-spi/spi-mt7621.c
> index b509f9fe3346..03d53845f8c5 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/mt7621-spi/spi-mt7621.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/mt7621-spi/spi-mt7621.c
> @@ -52,14 +52,14 @@
>  #define MT7621_LSB_FIRST	BIT(3)
>  
>  struct mt7621_spi {
> -	struct spi_master	*master;
> -	void __iomem		*base;
> -	unsigned int		sys_freq;
> -	unsigned int		speed;
> -	struct clk		*clk;
> -	int			pending_write;
> -
> -	struct mt7621_spi_ops	*ops;
> +	struct spi_master *master;
> +	void __iomem *base;
> +	unsigned int sys_freq;
> +	unsigned int speed;
> +	struct clk *clk;
> +	int pending_write;
> +
> +	struct mt7621_spi_ops *ops;

The original is fine.  I don't encourage people to do fancy indenting
with their local variable declarations inside functions but for a struct
the declarations aren't going to change a lot so people can get fancy
if they want.

The problem with a local is if you need to add a new variable then you
have to re-indent a bunch of unrelated lines or have one out of
alignment line.  Most people know this intuitively so they don't get
fancy.

>  };
>  
>  static inline struct mt7621_spi *spidev_to_mt7621_spi(struct spi_device *spi)
> @@ -303,7 +303,7 @@ static int mt7621_spi_setup(struct spi_device *spi)
>  	struct mt7621_spi *rs = spidev_to_mt7621_spi(spi);
>  
>  	if ((spi->max_speed_hz == 0) ||
> -		(spi->max_speed_hz > (rs->sys_freq / 2)))
> +	    (spi->max_speed_hz > (rs->sys_freq / 2)))

Yeah.  Lindent is correct here.

>  		spi->max_speed_hz = (rs->sys_freq / 2);
>  
>  	if (spi->max_speed_hz < (rs->sys_freq / 4097)) {
> @@ -316,9 +316,10 @@ static int mt7621_spi_setup(struct spi_device *spi)
>  }
>  
>  static const struct of_device_id mt7621_spi_match[] = {
> -	{ .compatible = "ralink,mt7621-spi" },
> +	{.compatible = "ralink,mt7621-spi"},

The original was better.

>  	{},
>  };
> +
>  MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, mt7621_spi_match);

No need for a blank.  These are closely related.

>  
>  static int mt7621_spi_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> @@ -408,9 +409,9 @@ MODULE_ALIAS("platform:" DRIVER_NAME);
>  
>  static struct platform_driver mt7621_spi_driver = {
>  	.driver = {
> -		.name = DRIVER_NAME,
> -		.of_match_table = mt7621_spi_match,
> -	},
> +		   .name = DRIVER_NAME,
> +		   .of_match_table = mt7621_spi_match,
> +		   },

The new indenting is very wrong.

regards,
dan carpenter