From: Guenter Roeck Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 20:20:00 +0000 Subject: Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH v3] Add support for the Philips SA56004 Message-Id: <20110626202000.GA9067@ericsson.com> List-Id: References: <1307356845-10095-1-git-send-email-sdevrien@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: Fubo Chen Cc: "sdevrien@cisco.com" , "khali@linux-fr.org" , "lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 03:54:37PM -0400, Fubo Chen wrote: > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:40 PM, wrote: > > + =A0 =A0 =A0 } else > > + =A0 =A0 =A0 if (man_id =3D 0xA1) { /* =A0NXP Semiconductor/Philips */ >=20 > No kernel coder writes like this. Has this ever been run through checkpat= ch ? >=20 What a nice comment. Quite obviously _you_ did not run the patch through ch= eckpatch to back up yout claim. I did: total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 151 lines checked The code format is in line with other if/else constructs in the same functi= on, which coincidentially also pass through checkpatch. Which you did not bother checking either (neither the format of the code in lm90.c nor the results of checkpatch over it). Before making statements like this, you might want to consider spending som= e time with the actual code - amongst others to see if the new code fits into the = structure of existing code. If you want to improve code formatting in this or in other files, I would s= uggest=20 to submit patches. Thanks, Guenter _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors