On Tue, 2017-01-17 at 08:17 +0100, Michał Kępień wrote:
Fix coding style issues in dell-wmi-led which checkpatch complains about to make sure the module gets a clean start in the x86 platform driver subsystem.
trivia:
Signed-off-by: Michał Kępień kernel@kempniu.pl
This is an extra patch that Jacek asked for [1].
[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/1/16/631
drivers/platform/x86/dell-wmi-led.c | 41 +++++++++++++++---------------------- 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/dell-wmi-led.c b/drivers/platform/x86/dell-wmi-led.c
[]
@@ -46,21 +46,16 @@ struct bios_args { unsigned char off_time; };
-static int dell_led_perform_fn(u8 length,
u8 result_code,u8 device_id,u8 command,u8 on_time,u8 off_time)+static int dell_led_perform_fn(u8 length, u8 result_code, u8 device_id,
u8 command, u8 on_time, u8 off_time){
- struct bios_args *bios_return;
- u8 return_code;
- union acpi_object *obj; struct acpi_buffer output = { ACPI_ALLOCATE_BUFFER, NULL };
- struct bios_args *bios_return, args; struct acpi_buffer input;
- union acpi_object *obj; acpi_status status;
- u8 return_code;
- struct bios_args args; args.length = length; args.result_code = result_code; args.device_id = device_id;
This declaration might be nicer using
struct bios_args args = { .length = length, .result_code = result_code, .device_id = device_id, [...] };
[]
@@ -138,24 +128,25 @@ static void dell_led_set(struct led_classdev *led_cdev, }
static int dell_led_blink(struct led_classdev *led_cdev,
unsigned long *delay_on,unsigned long *delay_off)
unsigned long *delay_on, unsigned long *delay_off){ unsigned long on_eighths; unsigned long off_eighths;
- /* The Dell LED delay is based on 125ms intervals.
Need to round up to next interval. */
/*
* The Dell LED delay is based on 125ms intervals.* Need to round up to next interval.*/on_eighths = (*delay_on + 124) / 125;
- if (0 == on_eighths)
if (on_eighths == 0) on_eighths = 1; if (on_eighths > 255) on_eighths = 255; *delay_on = on_eighths * 125;
off_eighths = (*delay_off + 124) / 125;
- if (0 == off_eighths)
- if (off_eighths == 0) off_eighths = 1; if (off_eighths > 255) off_eighths = 255;
These could use DIV_ROUND_UP and clamp()
Thanks for taking a look, Joe, I can certainly fix these.
Jacek, as resending an updated version of this patch with Joe's suggestions taken into account would be even more confusing than the "PATCH v2 6+/6" subject I already resorted to, I suggest the following: if this series goes to v3, I will include an updated version of this patch in v3, but in case the remaining patches get acked in their current shape by all maintainers, I will send an updated version of this extra patch separately, after the rest of the series gets applied. Does this sound reasonable?