Hi Andy,

On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 07:05:50PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 03:53:50PM +0200, Sakari Ailus wrote:

quoted

Porting a patch
forward should have no issues either as checkpatch.pl has been complaining
of the use of %pf and %pF for a while now.

And that's exactly the reason why I think instead of removing warning on
checkpatch, it makes sense to convert to an error for a while. People are
tending read documentation on internet and thus might have outdated one. And
yes, the compiler doesn't tell a thing about it.

P.S. Though, if majority of people will tell that I'm wrong, then it's okay to
remove.

I wonder if you wrote this before seeing my other patchset.

For others as the background, it adds %pfw to print fwnode node names.
Assuming this would be merged, %pfw could be in use relatively soon. With
the current patchset, %pf prints nothing just as %pO ("F" missing).

What I think could be done is to warn of plain %pf (without following "w")
in checkpatch.pl, and %pf that is not followed by "w" in the kernel.
Although we didn't have such checks to begin with. The case is still a
little bit different as %pf used to be a valid conversion specifier whereas
%pO likely has never existed.

So, how about adding such checks in the other set? I can retain %p[fF] check
here, too, if you like.

-- 
Kind regards,

Sakari Ailus
sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel