Skip to contentSkip to conversation

gpio: mcp23s08: Trivial: Fixed coding style issues

PATCH In review Gary Servin 4 participants 5 messages Mar 6, 2014 – Mar 14, 2014 GPIO

lore
Share & tools
lore

Gary Servin

author
#0 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 gpio: mcp23s08: Trivial: Fixed coding style issues

This coding style issue was detected using the checkpatch.pl script

Signed-off-by Gary Servin <[email protected]>
---
 drivers/gpio/gpio-mcp23s08.c | 22 +++++++++++-----------
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
drivers/gpio/gpio-mcp23s08.c +11 -11
index 1ac288e..e1734c1 100644
@@ -173,7 +173,7 @@ static int mcp23s08_read(struct mcp23s08 *mcp, unsigned reg)
 
 	tx[0] = mcp->addr | 0x01;
 	tx[1] = reg;
-	status = spi_write_then_read(mcp->data, tx, sizeof tx, rx, sizeof rx);
+	status = spi_write_then_read(mcp->data, tx, sizeof(tx), rx, sizeof(rx));
 	return (status < 0) ? status : rx[0];
 }
 

@@ -184,7 +184,7 @@ static int mcp23s08_write(struct mcp23s08 *mcp, unsigned reg, unsigned val)
 	tx[0] = mcp->addr;
 	tx[1] = reg;
 	tx[2] = val;
-	return spi_write_then_read(mcp->data, tx, sizeof tx, NULL, 0);
+	return spi_write_then_read(mcp->data, tx, sizeof(tx), NULL, 0);
 }
 
 static int

@@ -193,13 +193,13 @@ mcp23s08_read_regs(struct mcp23s08 *mcp, unsigned reg, u16 *vals, unsigned n)
 	u8	tx[2], *tmp;
 	int	status;
 
-	if ((n + reg) > sizeof mcp->cache)
+	if ((n + reg) > sizeof(mcp->cache))
 		return -EINVAL;
 	tx[0] = mcp->addr | 0x01;
 	tx[1] = reg;
 
 	tmp = (u8 *)vals;
-	status = spi_write_then_read(mcp->data, tx, sizeof tx, tmp, n);
+	status = spi_write_then_read(mcp->data, tx, sizeof(tx), tmp, n);
 	if (status >= 0) {
 		while (n--)
 			vals[n] = tmp[n]; /* expand to 16bit */

@@ -214,7 +214,7 @@ static int mcp23s17_read(struct mcp23s08 *mcp, unsigned reg)
 
 	tx[0] = mcp->addr | 0x01;
 	tx[1] = reg << 1;
-	status = spi_write_then_read(mcp->data, tx, sizeof tx, rx, sizeof rx);
+	status = spi_write_then_read(mcp->data, tx, sizeof(tx), rx, sizeof(rx));
 	return (status < 0) ? status : (rx[0] | (rx[1] << 8));
 }
 

@@ -226,7 +226,7 @@ static int mcp23s17_write(struct mcp23s08 *mcp, unsigned reg, unsigned val)
 	tx[1] = reg << 1;
 	tx[2] = val;
 	tx[3] = val >> 8;
-	return spi_write_then_read(mcp->data, tx, sizeof tx, NULL, 0);
+	return spi_write_then_read(mcp->data, tx, sizeof(tx), NULL, 0);
 }
 
 static int

@@ -235,12 +235,12 @@ mcp23s17_read_regs(struct mcp23s08 *mcp, unsigned reg, u16 *vals, unsigned n)
 	u8	tx[2];
 	int	status;
 
-	if ((n + reg) > sizeof mcp->cache)
+	if ((n + reg) > sizeof(mcp->cache))
 		return -EINVAL;
 	tx[0] = mcp->addr | 0x01;
 	tx[1] = reg << 1;
 
-	status = spi_write_then_read(mcp->data, tx, sizeof tx,
+	status = spi_write_then_read(mcp->data, tx, sizeof(tx),
 				     (u8 *)vals, n * 2);
 	if (status >= 0) {
 		while (n--)

@@ -567,7 +567,7 @@ static void mcp23s08_dbg_show(struct seq_file *s, struct gpio_chip *chip)
 			(mcp->cache[MCP_GPIO] & mask) ? "hi" : "lo",
 			(mcp->cache[MCP_GPPU] & mask) ? "up" : "  ");
 		/* NOTE:  ignoring the irq-related registers */
-		seq_printf(s, "\n");
+		seq_puts(s, "\n");
 	}
 done:
 	mutex_unlock(&mcp->lock);

@@ -789,7 +789,7 @@ static int mcp230xx_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
 		pullups = pdata->chip[0].pullups;
 	}
 
-	mcp = kzalloc(sizeof *mcp, GFP_KERNEL);
+	mcp = kzalloc(sizeof(*mcp), GFP_KERNEL);
 	if (!mcp)
 		return -ENOMEM;
 

@@ -925,7 +925,7 @@ static int mcp23s08_probe(struct spi_device *spi)
 		base = pdata->base;
 	}
 
-	data = kzalloc(sizeof *data + chips * sizeof(struct mcp23s08),
+	data = kzalloc(sizeof(*data) + chips * sizeof(struct mcp23s08),
 			GFP_KERNEL);
 	if (!data)
 		return -ENOMEM;
Signature · 1 line
1.9.0
#3 lore raw
Quoted 9 lines · Linus Walleij
Quoted 3 lines · Gary Servin

This coding style issue was detected using the checkpatch.pl script

Signed-off-by Gary Servin <[email protected]>

Sometimes the compiler is just too forgiving :-/
Thanks a lot for fixing this, patch applied.

I think the code had no syntax or language issue before. The cleanup really was about style exclusively (which still is a good thing). 'sizeof' is an operator, very much like a unary minus or unary ampersand which neither require parentheses. So either of "sizeof(x)" as well as "sizeof x" are legal with regard to the C language. It's just that the community prefers "sizeof(x)" for the improved readability.

virtually yours
Gerhard Sittig

Signature · 3 lines
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr. 5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: +49-8142-66989-0 Fax: +49-8142-66989-80  Email: [email protected]
#4 lore raw
Quoted 5 lines · Gerhard Sittig

'sizeof' is an operator, very much like a unary minus or
unary ampersand which neither require parentheses. So either of "sizeof(x)" as well as "sizeof x" are legal with regard to the C language. It's just that the community prefers "sizeof(x)" for the improved readability.

You're right, amazingly. Thanks for teaching me something new today!

Yours,
Linus Walleij