Skip to contentSkip to conversation

staging/rtl8192u: fix coding style problems

PATCH In review Devendra Naga 4 participants 7 messages Jun 19, 2012 – Jun 23, 2012 Staging

lore
Share & tools
lore

Devendra Naga

author
#0 lore raw

PATCH v2 1/3 staging/rtl8192u: fix coding style problems

fixed some of the coding style problems reported by checkpatch

Signed-off-by Devendra Naga <[email protected]>
---
 drivers/staging/rtl8192u/r8180_93cx6.c |   36 +++++++++++++++++---------------
 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
drivers/staging/rtl8192u/r8180_93cx6.c +19 -17
index 3c515b7..19f5270 100644
@@ -22,13 +22,16 @@
 
 void eprom_cs(struct net_device *dev, short bit)
 {
-	if(bit)
+	if (bit) {
+		/* enable EPROM */
 		write_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD,
-			       (1<<EPROM_CS_SHIFT) | \
-			       read_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD)); //enable EPROM
-	else
-		write_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD, read_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD)\
-			       &~(1<<EPROM_CS_SHIFT)); //disable EPROM
+				(1<<EPROM_CS_SHIFT) |
+				read_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD));
+	} else {
+		/* disable EPROM */
+		write_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD, read_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD)
+			       & ~(1<<EPROM_CS_SHIFT));
+	}
 
 	force_pci_posting(dev);
 	udelay(EPROM_DELAY);

@@ -38,24 +41,24 @@ void eprom_cs(struct net_device *dev, short bit)
 void eprom_ck_cycle(struct net_device *dev)
 {
 	write_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD,
-		       (1<<EPROM_CK_SHIFT) | read_nic_byte_E(dev,EPROM_CMD));
+		       (1<<EPROM_CK_SHIFT) | read_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD));
 	force_pci_posting(dev);
 	udelay(EPROM_DELAY);
 	write_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD,
-		       read_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD) &~ (1<<EPROM_CK_SHIFT));
+		       read_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD) & ~(1<<EPROM_CK_SHIFT));
 	force_pci_posting(dev);
 	udelay(EPROM_DELAY);
 }
 
 
-void eprom_w(struct net_device *dev,short bit)
+void eprom_w(struct net_device *dev, short bit)
 {
-	if(bit)
-		write_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD, (1<<EPROM_W_SHIFT) | \
-			       read_nic_byte_E(dev,EPROM_CMD));
+	if (bit)
+		write_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD, (1<<EPROM_W_SHIFT) |
+			       read_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD));
 	else
-		write_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD, read_nic_byte_E(dev,EPROM_CMD)\
-			       &~(1<<EPROM_W_SHIFT));
+		write_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD, read_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD)
+			       & ~(1<<EPROM_W_SHIFT));
 
 	force_pci_posting(dev);
 	udelay(EPROM_DELAY);

@@ -66,11 +69,10 @@ short eprom_r(struct net_device *dev)
 {
 	short bit;
 
-	bit=(read_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD) & (1<<EPROM_R_SHIFT) );
+	bit = (read_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD) & (1<<EPROM_R_SHIFT));
 	udelay(EPROM_DELAY);
 
-	if(bit) return 1;
-	return 0;
+	return !!bit;
 }
Signature · 1 line
1.7.9.5
maintainer
#1 lore raw
Quoted 68 lines · Devendra Naga

fixed some of the coding style problems reported by checkpatch

Signed-off-by Devendra Naga <[email protected]>
---
 drivers/staging/rtl8192u/r8180_93cx6.c |   36 +++++++++++++++++---------------
 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
drivers/staging/rtl8192u/r8180_93cx6.c +17 -14
index 3c515b7..19f5270 100644
@@ -22,13 +22,16 @@
 
 void eprom_cs(struct net_device *dev, short bit)
 {
-	if(bit)
+	if (bit) {
+		/* enable EPROM */
 		write_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD,
-			       (1<<EPROM_CS_SHIFT) | \
-			       read_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD)); //enable EPROM
-	else
-		write_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD, read_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD)\
-			       &~(1<<EPROM_CS_SHIFT)); //disable EPROM
+				(1<<EPROM_CS_SHIFT) |
+				read_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD));
+	} else {
+		/* disable EPROM */
+		write_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD, read_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD)
+			       & ~(1<<EPROM_CS_SHIFT));
+	}
 
 	force_pci_posting(dev);
 	udelay(EPROM_DELAY);

@@ -38,24 +41,24 @@ void eprom_cs(struct net_device *dev, short bit)
 void eprom_ck_cycle(struct net_device *dev)
 {
 	write_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD,
-		       (1<<EPROM_CK_SHIFT) | read_nic_byte_E(dev,EPROM_CMD));
+		       (1<<EPROM_CK_SHIFT) | read_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD));
 	force_pci_posting(dev);
 	udelay(EPROM_DELAY);
 	write_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD,
-		       read_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD) &~ (1<<EPROM_CK_SHIFT));
+		       read_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD) & ~(1<<EPROM_CK_SHIFT));
 	force_pci_posting(dev);
 	udelay(EPROM_DELAY);
 }
 
 
-void eprom_w(struct net_device *dev,short bit)
+void eprom_w(struct net_device *dev, short bit)
 {
-	if(bit)
-		write_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD, (1<<EPROM_W_SHIFT) | \
-			       read_nic_byte_E(dev,EPROM_CMD));
+	if (bit)
+		write_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD, (1<<EPROM_W_SHIFT) |
+			       read_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD));
 	else
-		write_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD, read_nic_byte_E(dev,EPROM_CMD)\
-			       &~(1<<EPROM_W_SHIFT));
+		write_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD, read_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD)
+			       & ~(1<<EPROM_W_SHIFT));
 
 	force_pci_posting(dev);
 	udelay(EPROM_DELAY);

drivers/staging/rtl8192u/r8180_93cx6.c short eprom_r(struct net_device *dev) · line 75

Quoted 10 lines
drivers/staging/rtl8192u/r8180_93cx6.c +2 -3
@@ -66,11 +69,10 @@ short eprom_r(struct net_device *dev)
 {
 	short bit;
 
-	bit=(read_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD) & (1<<EPROM_R_SHIFT) );
+	bit = (read_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD) & (1<<EPROM_R_SHIFT));
 	udelay(EPROM_DELAY);
 
-	if(bit) return 1;
-	return 0;
+	return !!bit;

Oh come on, really? !! is more "clear" here?

No, please be painfully obvious, that's the only way to write kernel code. Not like this.

greg k-h

#2 lore raw
Quoted 2 lines · Greg Kroah-Hartman
Quoted 1 line · Devendra Naga

fixed some of the coding style problems reported by checkpatch

[]

Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 8 lines
drivers/staging/rtl8192u/r8180_93cx6.c +1 -1
@@ -66,11 +69,10 @@ short eprom_r(struct net_device *dev)
 {
 	short bit;
 
-	bit=(read_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD) & (1<<EPROM_R_SHIFT) );
+	bit = (read_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD) & (1<<EPROM_R_SHIFT));
 	udelay(EPROM_DELAY);
Quoted 5 lines

drivers/staging/rtl8192u/r8180_93cx6.c short eprom_r(struct net_device *dev) · line 75

Quoted 3 lines
drivers/staging/rtl8192u/r8180_93cx6.c +1 -2
-	if(bit) return 1;
-	return 0;
+	return !!bit;

Oh come on, really? !! is more "clear" here?

Depends on the reader. !! is pretty common.

Quoted 2 lines

No, please be painfully obvious, that's the only way to write kernel code. Not like this.

I'd just make the return a bool instead.

Also, there are unnecessary parens that could
be removed to make the code clearer.

(1<<EPROM_R_SHIFT), (1<<EPROM_W_SHIFT) and
(1<<EPROM_CK_SHIFT) could be new #defines too.

author
#3 lore raw

Hi Joe,

Quoted 18 lines · Joe Perches
Quoted 2 lines · Greg Kroah-Hartman
Quoted 1 line · Devendra Naga

fixed some of the coding style problems reported by checkpatch

[]

Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 8 lines
drivers/staging/rtl8192u/r8180_93cx6.c +1 -1
@@ -66,11 +69,10 @@ short eprom_r(struct net_device *dev)
  {
     short bit;
 
-   bit=(read_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD) & (1<<EPROM_R_SHIFT) );
+   bit = (read_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD) & (1<<EPROM_R_SHIFT));
     udelay(EPROM_DELAY);
Quoted 5 lines

drivers/staging/rtl8192u/r8180_93cx6.c short eprom_r(struct net_device *dev) · line 75

Quoted 3 lines
drivers/staging/rtl8192u/r8180_93cx6.c +1 -2
-   if(bit) return 1;
-   return 0;
+   return !!bit;

Oh come on, really?  !! is more "clear" here?

Quoted 7 lines

Depends on the reader.  !! is pretty common.

Quoted 2 lines

No, please be painfully obvious, that's the only way to write kernel code.  Not like this.

I'd just make the return a bool instead.

taking another variable and assign it like bool ret = !!bit, and
returning ret?, i think this doesn't look better.

Quoted 7 lines

Also, there are unnecessary parens that could
be removed to make the code clearer.

(1<<EPROM_R_SHIFT), (1<<EPROM_W_SHIFT) and
(1<<EPROM_CK_SHIFT) could be new #defines too.

Will do.

thanks joe.

Devendra.

#4 lore raw
Quoted 23 lines · devendra.aaru

Hi Joe,

Quoted 20 lines · Joe Perches
Quoted 2 lines · Greg Kroah-Hartman
Quoted 1 line · Devendra Naga

fixed some of the coding style problems reported by checkpatch

[]

Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 8 lines
drivers/staging/rtl8192u/r8180_93cx6.c +1 -1
@@ -66,11 +69,10 @@ short eprom_r(struct net_device *dev)
  {
     short bit;
 
-   bit=(read_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD) & (1<<EPROM_R_SHIFT) );
+   bit = (read_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD) & (1<<EPROM_R_SHIFT));
     udelay(EPROM_DELAY);
Quoted 5 lines

drivers/staging/rtl8192u/r8180_93cx6.c short eprom_r(struct net_device *dev) · line 75

Quoted 3 lines
drivers/staging/rtl8192u/r8180_93cx6.c +1 -2
-   if(bit) return 1;
-   return 0;
+   return !!bit;

Oh come on, really?  !! is more "clear" here?

Depends on the reader.  !! is pretty common.

Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 2 lines

No, please be painfully obvious, that's the only way to write kernel code.  Not like this.

I'd just make the return a bool instead.

taking another variable and assign it like bool ret = !!bit, and
returning ret?, i think this doesn't look better.

*eye roll*

	if (bit)
		return 1;
	return 0;

regards,
dan carpenter

#5 lore raw
In reply to devendra.aaru
Quoted 1 line · devendra.aaru

Hi Joe,

Hi Devendra.

Quoted 5 lines · Joe Perches
Quoted 1 line

I'd just make the return a bool instead.

taking another variable and assign it like bool ret = !!bit, and
returning ret?, i think this doesn't look better.

No. just

	return val;
or
	return (bool)val;

if using the implicit conversion bothers you.

author
#6 lore raw
In reply to Greg Kroah-Hartman
Quoted 11 lines · Greg Kroah-Hartman
Quoted 7 lines · Devendra Naga

-     bit=(read_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD) & (1<<EPROM_R_SHIFT) );
+     bit = (read_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD) & (1<<EPROM_R_SHIFT)); udelay(EPROM_DELAY);

-     if(bit) return 1;
-     return 0;
+     return !!bit;

Oh come on, really?  !! is more "clear" here?

It looks ok to me,

Quoted 3 lines

No, please be painfully obvious, that's the only way to write kernel code.  Not like this.

Ok, so no !!'s ? and just that if (bit) thingy?

Quoted 1 line

greg k-h