IronPort-SDR: siJmaYYDSjuV+ahszg6N9PWAQ9z7l8kwDgIKUlWJbzJwijPl7t2ZpY69puQrERAfUy/yxCI6XF
 v0MCvin+Lh3w==
IronPort-SDR: 9IaX/fYBJAgXatengMnHO39Tua0QJ/AXr1tAe0qgoZumkO3CBX+VYZ7J5C0G7vHUlchx/QB1Hv
 AbtnXR9RtyrA==
Date:   Thu, 16 Apr 2020 17:09:13 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
To:     Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@gmail.com>
Cc:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 14/14] gpio: dwapb: Amend indentation in some cases
Message-ID: <20200416140913.GD185537@smile.fi.intel.com>
References: <20200415141534.31240-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
 <20200415141534.31240-15-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
 <20200415171516.cugbzhvjua6cygnq@mobilestation>
 <20200416105614.GZ185537@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <20200416110613.4yyrlcle4oiy46a7@mobilestation>
 <CACRpkdacW7_Q7YW1WOazLaP_HKBbNKev3caJyKSNMBbXp7j1Zw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200416133737.lvve4svqak6tbgwn@mobilestation>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200416133737.lvve4svqak6tbgwn@mobilestation>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo
Sender: linux-gpio-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 04:37:37PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 02:14:10PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 1:06 PM Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Ah, Linus already pulled the series in. Next time then.)
> > 
> > Yeah sorry, I was a bit stressed by a big mail backlog and also a bit
> > infatuated with my new b4 tool.
> > 
> > Is it fine to fix any remaining issues with extra patches?
> 
> I see. No worries. Andy did a good work fixing the indentations. But that
> caused the 80 chars line rule violation in some cases. The best way would
> be to avoid the rule violation in the first place, though sometimes it's
> just impossible without weakening the code readability. I suggested to fix
> some of the issues by reducing the error messages length and in another
> case just to remove the no-op &-operation. So If there were following up
> patches with fixes it would have been great. Though since we have got a
> violation for several chars in just a few lines of code, we can leave
> with that for now. So if Andy doesn't have a time to send the followup
> patches, I'll do this sometime later in the framework of my next patchset.

I see an immutable branch with this series, so, it means it will be easier
to all of us to move on from this point now.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko