staging: rtl8723bs: remove unnecessary comment separator lines

From: Ignacio Pena <[email protected]>

Remove the long dashed separator lines from block comments as they don't follow kernel coding style, as suggested by Greg KH.

---
 drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_efuse.c | 6 ------
 1 file changed, 6 deletions(-)

index 7a74b011d..abc123def 100644
@@ -70,7 +70,6 @@ Efuse_Write1ByteToFakeContent(u16 Offset, u8 Value)
  * When			Who		Remark
  * 11/17/2008	MHC		Create Version 0.
  *
- *---------------------------------------------------------------------------*/
 void
 Efuse_PowerSwitch(
 struct adapter *padapter,

@@ -163,7 +162,6 @@ EFUSE_GetEfuseDefinition(
  * When			Who		Remark
  * 09/23/2008	MHC		Copy from WMAC.
  *
- *---------------------------------------------------------------------------*/
 u8
 EFUSE_Read1Byte(
 struct adapter *Adapter,

@@ -313,7 +311,6 @@ Efuse_WordEnableDataWrite(struct adapter *padapter,
  * When			Who		Remark
  * 11/11/2008	MHC		Create Version 0.
  *
- *---------------------------------------------------------------------------*/
 void
 Efuse_ReadAllMap(
 	struct adapter *padapter,

@@ -350,7 +347,6 @@ void Efuse_ReadAllMap(struct adapter *padapter, u8 efuseType, u8 *Efuse, bool bP
  * When			Who		Remark
  * 11/12/2008	MHC		Create Version 0.
  *
- *---------------------------------------------------------------------------*/
 static void efuse_ShadowRead1Byte(struct adapter *padapter, u16 Offset, u8 *Value)
 {
 	struct eeprom_priv *pEEPROM = GET_EEPROM_EFUSE_PRIV(padapter);

@@ -396,7 +392,6 @@ static void efuse_ShadowRead4Byte(struct adapter *padapter, u16 Offset, u32 *Val
  * When			Who		Remark
  * 11/13/2008	MHC		Create Version 0.
  *
- *---------------------------------------------------------------------------*/
 void EFUSE_ShadowMapUpdate(struct adapter *padapter, u8 efuseType, bool bPseudoTest)
 {
 	struct eeprom_priv *pEEPROM = GET_EEPROM_EFUSE_PRIV(padapter);

@@ -429,7 +424,6 @@ void EFUSE_ShadowMapUpdate(struct adapter *padapter, u8 efuseType, bool bPseudoT
  * When			Who		Remark
  * 11/12/2008	MHC		Create Version 0.
  *
- *---------------------------------------------------------------------------*/
 void EFUSE_ShadowRead(struct adapter *padapter, u8 Type, u16 Offset, u32 *Value)
 {
 	if (Type == 1)

2.39.5

From: Ignacio Pena <[email protected]>

Fix checkpatch warning by adding required blank line after variable declaration in Efuse_CalculateWordCnts function.

---
 drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_efuse.c | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

index abc123def..def456abc 100644
@@ -84,6 +84,7 @@ u8
 Efuse_CalculateWordCnts(u8 word_en)
 {
 	u8 word_cnts = 0;
+
 	if (!(word_en & BIT(0)))
 		word_cnts++; /*  0 : write enable */
 	if (!(word_en & BIT(1)))

2.39.5

Hi,

This is the friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman. You have sent him a patch that has triggered this response. He used to manually respond to these common problems, but in order to save his sanity (he kept writing the same thing over and over, yet to different people), I was created. Hopefully you will not take offence and will fix the problem in your patch and resubmit it so that it can be accepted into the Linux kernel tree.

You are receiving this message because of the following common error(s) as indicated below:

- This looks like a new version of a previously submitted patch, but you did not list below the --- line any changes from the previous version. Please read the section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the kernel file, Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst for what needs to be done here to properly describe this.

If you wish to discuss this problem further, or you have questions about how to resolve this issue, please feel free to respond to this email and Greg will reply once he has dug out from the pending patches received from other developers.

thanks,

greg k-h's patch email bot

From: Ignacio Pena <[email protected]>

Remove commented out code that serves no purpose, as suggested by Greg KH.

---
 drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_cmd.c | 3 ---
 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)

index 437934dd2..abc789def 100644
@@ -1317,9 +1317,6 @@ u8 rtw_lps_ctrl_wk_cmd(struct adapter *padapter, u8 lps_ctrl_type, u8 enqueue)
 	/* struct pwrctrl_priv *pwrctrlpriv = adapter_to_pwrctl(padapter); */
 	u8 res = _SUCCESS;
 
-	/* if (!pwrctrlpriv->bLeisurePs) */
-	/* 	return res; */
-
 	if (enqueue) {
 		ph2c = rtw_zmalloc(sizeof(struct cmd_obj));
 		if (!ph2c) {

2.39.5

Hi,

This is the friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman. You have sent him a patch that has triggered this response. He used to manually respond to these common problems, but in order to save his sanity (he kept writing the same thing over and over, yet to different people), I was created. Hopefully you will not take offence and will fix the problem in your patch and resubmit it so that it can be accepted into the Linux kernel tree.

You are receiving this message because of the following common error(s) as indicated below:

- This looks like a new version of a previously submitted patch, but you did not list below the --- line any changes from the previous version. Please read the section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the kernel file, Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst for what needs to be done here to properly describe this.

If you wish to discuss this problem further, or you have questions about how to resolve this issue, please feel free to respond to this email and Greg will reply once he has dug out from the pending patches received from other developers.

thanks,

greg k-h's patch email bot

Hi,

This is the friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman. You have sent him a patch that has triggered this response. He used to manually respond to these common problems, but in order to save his sanity (he kept writing the same thing over and over, yet to different people), I was created. Hopefully you will not take offence and will fix the problem in your patch and resubmit it so that it can be accepted into the Linux kernel tree.

You are receiving this message because of the following common error(s) as indicated below:

- This looks like a new version of a previously submitted patch, but you did not list below the --- line any changes from the previous version. Please read the section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the kernel file, Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst for what needs to be done here to properly describe this.

If you wish to discuss this problem further, or you have questions about how to resolve this issue, please feel free to respond to this email and Greg will reply once he has dug out from the pending patches received from other developers.

thanks,

greg k-h's patch email bot