Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200428172322.1.I396f351e364f3c09df7c7606e79abefb8682c092@changeid>
 <20200428172322.2.Iacb3c8152c3cf9015a91308678155a578b0cc050@changeid>
 <a23b7a97f349e6f74b993a4e127564ad3f7d6929.camel@perches.com>
 <CAD=FV=Us6LyfgeXvxnqq+KhHN1djok1y+W_xzSb-KGFy2wgEMg@mail.gmail.com> <bc5c8165908facbb4781b2f29903dfacdf625e83.camel@perches.com>
In-Reply-To: <bc5c8165908facbb4781b2f29903dfacdf625e83.camel@perches.com>
From:   Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Date:   Tue, 28 Apr 2020 18:04:04 -0700
Message-ID: <CAD=FV=VtUEgwwB6C4GhTKx3TP37=i4shtwbG41r=wkELcpNmyQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] gpio: Make "offset" and "unsigned int", not just "unsigned"
To:     Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Cc:     LinusW <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 5:57 PM Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2020-04-28 at 17:50 -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 5:38 PM Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2020-04-28 at 17:23 -0700, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> > > > When I copied the function prototypes from the GPIO header file into
> > > > my own driver, checkpatch yelled at me saying that I shouldn't use use
> > > > "unsigned" but instead should say "unsigned int".  Let's make the
> > > > header file use "unsigned int" so others who copy like I did won't get
> > > > yelled at.
> > >
> > > There are a few other unsigned declarations in the file.
> >
> > There are?  I swear I looked for them before I sent my patch and I
> > couldn't find them.  Then I looked again upon seeing your reply and I
> > still can't find them.  My eyes are bad, though.  Maybe you can give
> > me specifics?
>
> $ git grep -P -n '\bunsigned\s+(?!int|long)' include/linux/gpio/driver.h
> include/linux/gpio/driver.h:352:                                                unsigned offset);
> include/linux/gpio/driver.h:354:                                                unsigned offset);
> include/linux/gpio/driver.h:356:                                                unsigned offset);
> include/linux/gpio/driver.h:358:                                                unsigned offset);
> include/linux/gpio/driver.h:360:                                                unsigned offset, int value);
> include/linux/gpio/driver.h:362:                                                unsigned offset);
> include/linux/gpio/driver.h:367:                                                unsigned offset, int value);
> include/linux/gpio/driver.h:372:                                              unsigned offset,
> include/linux/gpio/driver.h:375:                                                unsigned offset);
> include/linux/gpio/driver.h:462:                        unsigned offset);
> include/linux/gpio/driver.h:660:int gpiochip_generic_request(struct gpio_chip *gc, unsigned offset);
> include/linux/gpio/driver.h:661:void gpiochip_generic_free(struct gpio_chip *gc, unsigned offset);
> include/linux/gpio/driver.h:662:int gpiochip_generic_config(struct gpio_chip *gc, unsigned offset,

...riiiiiggght.   ...and now I run your sed script _after_ my patch
and I get no hits.  ...so I'm still confused about what you want me to
do that's not already done in my patch.


> > > Maybe do all of them (and remove the unnecessary externs)?
> >
> > You mean just remove the word "extern" everywhere in this file?  Sure,
> > I can if you want.
>
> Up to the actual maintainers I suppose.
> There are only a few extern function declarations.
> Most do not use extern.

OK, maybe I'll wait for Linux W. or Bartosz to weigh in unless there
is some Linux policy against using "extern" in header files?


> > > trivial reformatting of the function pointer block too
> >
> > Wow, I must be totally out of it.  Maybe it's the gin and tonic I just
> > had.  I don't understand this comment either.  Can you clarify?
>
>         int                             (*foo)(...,
>                                                ...);
>
> might be better with fewer tabs between return type and function pointer
>
>         int             (*foo)(..., ...);

I'll wait for Linux W. or Bartosz to weigh in here, since it feels
more like a style decision.  Happy to add a patch for it, though.

-Doug