On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 10:01:13PM -0700, Isaac Assegai wrote:
quoted hunk
Insert Spaces after commas to rectify the following checkpatch
errors in ddk750_mode.c, sm750_accel.c and sm750_help.h:
ERROR: space required after that ','
Signed-off-by: Isaac Assegai <redacted>
---
drivers/staging/sm750fb/ddk750_mode.c | 46 +++++++++++++++++------------------
drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750_accel.c | 2 +-
drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750_help.h | 2 +-
3 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/staging/sm750fb/ddk750_mode.c b/drivers/staging/sm750fb/ddk750_mode.c
index 4e252fb..a054747 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/sm750fb/ddk750_mode.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/sm750fb/ddk750_mode.c
@@ -101,29 +101,29 @@ static int programModeRegisters(mode_parameter_t * pModeParam, pll_value_t * pll
| FIELD_VALUE(0, CRT_VERTICAL_SYNC, START, pModeParam->vertical_sync_start - 1));
- ulTmpValue = FIELD_VALUE(0, CRT_DISPLAY_CTRL,VSYNC_PHASE, pModeParam->vertical_sync_polarity)|
+ ulTmpValue = FIELD_VALUE(0, CRT_DISPLAY_CTRL, VSYNC_PHASE, pModeParam->vertical_sync_polarity)|
FIELD_VALUE(0, CRT_DISPLAY_CTRL, HSYNC_PHASE, pModeParam->horizontal_sync_polarity)|
- FIELD_SET(0, CRT_DISPLAY_CTRL, TIMING,ENABLE)|
- FIELD_SET(0,CRT_DISPLAY_CTRL,PLANE,ENABLE);
+ FIELD_SET(0, CRT_DISPLAY_CTRL, TIMING, ENABLE)|
+ FIELD_SET(0, CRT_DISPLAY_CTRL, PLANE, ENABLE);
I am getting confused now.
This part you have modified in patch 10/12 and i just replied that
you have missed two modifications.
regards
sudip
On Tue, Jun 02, 2015 at 12:18:06PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 10:01:13PM -0700, Isaac Assegai wrote:
quoted
Insert Spaces after commas to rectify the following checkpatch
errors in ddk750_mode.c, sm750_accel.c and sm750_help.h:
ERROR: space required after that ','
Signed-off-by: Isaac Assegai <redacted>
---
drivers/staging/sm750fb/ddk750_mode.c | 46 +++++++++++++++++------------------
drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750_accel.c | 2 +-
drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750_help.h | 2 +-
3 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/staging/sm750fb/ddk750_mode.c b/drivers/staging/sm750fb/ddk750_mode.c
index 4e252fb..a054747 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/sm750fb/ddk750_mode.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/sm750fb/ddk750_mode.c
@@ -101,29 +101,29 @@ static int programModeRegisters(mode_parameter_t * pModeParam, pll_value_t * pll
| FIELD_VALUE(0, CRT_VERTICAL_SYNC, START, pModeParam->vertical_sync_start - 1));
- ulTmpValue = FIELD_VALUE(0, CRT_DISPLAY_CTRL,VSYNC_PHASE, pModeParam->vertical_sync_polarity)|
+ ulTmpValue = FIELD_VALUE(0, CRT_DISPLAY_CTRL, VSYNC_PHASE, pModeParam->vertical_sync_polarity)|
FIELD_VALUE(0, CRT_DISPLAY_CTRL, HSYNC_PHASE, pModeParam->horizontal_sync_polarity)|
- FIELD_SET(0, CRT_DISPLAY_CTRL, TIMING,ENABLE)|
- FIELD_SET(0,CRT_DISPLAY_CTRL,PLANE,ENABLE);
+ FIELD_SET(0, CRT_DISPLAY_CTRL, TIMING, ENABLE)|
+ FIELD_SET(0, CRT_DISPLAY_CTRL, PLANE, ENABLE);
I am getting confused now.
This part you have modified in patch 10/12 and i just replied that
you have missed two modifications.
regards
sudip
Thanks for your feedback Sudip, I have a few questions:
1. After applying the first 11 patches I ran checkpatch again and noticed that
I missed three warnings so I ran a 12th patch fixing them. That's why you
see the 12th patch modifying a file that another patch already touched.
What should be done in this type of situation?
2. On Patch 3 you pointed out two trailing whitespace errors.
I ran checkpatch on all the patches before I sent them to
make sure I didn't introduce any new errors, however
there are *many* warnings and errors showing up from
the poor styling already present and I missed these
whitespace errors in the mess.
Can I make checkpatch suppress any errors that might have already
been present in the code and only show me those issues introduced
by the patch itself? If not, how did you identify it?
Thanks,
Isaac
On Tue, Jun 02, 2015 at 12:55:22AM -0700, Isaac Assegai wrote:
On Tue, Jun 02, 2015 at 12:18:06PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
quoted
On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 10:01:13PM -0700, Isaac Assegai wrote:
<snip>
quoted
quoted
+ FIELD_SET(0, CRT_DISPLAY_CTRL, TIMING, ENABLE)|
+ FIELD_SET(0, CRT_DISPLAY_CTRL, PLANE, ENABLE);
I am getting confused now.
This part you have modified in patch 10/12 and i just replied that
you have missed two modifications.
Thanks for your feedback Sudip, I have a few questions:
1. After applying the first 11 patches I ran checkpatch again and noticed that
I missed three warnings so I ran a 12th patch fixing them. That's why you
see the 12th patch modifying a file that another patch already touched.
What should be done in this type of situation?
you have to start from the beginning again. :(
I have faced such similar situation also, but starting for the beginnig
is the only way.
2. On Patch 3 you pointed out two trailing whitespace errors.
I ran checkpatch on all the patches before I sent them to
make sure I didn't introduce any new errors,
but it looks like they were introduced in your patch.
- int (*de_imageblit)(struct lynx_accel *,const char *,u32,u32,u32,
- u32,u32,u32,u32,u32,u32,u32,u32,u32);
+ int (*de_imageblit)(struct lynx_accel *, const char *, u32, u32, u32, u32,
the original code was having three u32, i think when you moved one more
u32 from the following line you forgot to remove the space after that.
however
there are *many* warnings and errors showing up from
the poor styling already present and I missed these
whitespace errors in the mess.
Can I make checkpatch suppress any errors that might have already
been present in the code and only show me those issues introduced
by the patch itself? If not, how did you identify it?
i dont think checkpatch can work like that way.
identification was easy. i saw checkpatch giving error and noticed you
have modified the code. So i checked the original code if trailing
whitespace was there or not.
regards
sudip
On Tue, Jun 02, 2015 at 01:55:56PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
On Tue, Jun 02, 2015 at 12:55:22AM -0700, Isaac Assegai wrote:
quoted
On Tue, Jun 02, 2015 at 12:18:06PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
quoted
On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 10:01:13PM -0700, Isaac Assegai wrote:
<snip>
quoted
quoted
quoted
+ FIELD_SET(0, CRT_DISPLAY_CTRL, TIMING, ENABLE)|
+ FIELD_SET(0, CRT_DISPLAY_CTRL, PLANE, ENABLE);
I am getting confused now.
This part you have modified in patch 10/12 and i just replied that
you have missed two modifications.
Thanks for your feedback Sudip, I have a few questions:
1. After applying the first 11 patches I ran checkpatch again and noticed that
I missed three warnings so I ran a 12th patch fixing them. That's why you
see the 12th patch modifying a file that another patch already touched.
What should be done in this type of situation?
you have to start from the beginning again. :(
I have faced such similar situation also, but starting for the beginnig
is the only way.
quoted
2. On Patch 3 you pointed out two trailing whitespace errors.
I ran checkpatch on all the patches before I sent them to
make sure I didn't introduce any new errors,
but it looks like they were introduced in your patch.
quoted
- int (*de_imageblit)(struct lynx_accel *,const char *,u32,u32,u32,
- u32,u32,u32,u32,u32,u32,u32,u32,u32);
+ int (*de_imageblit)(struct lynx_accel *, const char *, u32, u32, u32, u32,
the original code was having three u32, i think when you moved one more
u32 from the following line you forgot to remove the space after that.
quoted
however
there are *many* warnings and errors showing up from
the poor styling already present and I missed these
whitespace errors in the mess.
Can I make checkpatch suppress any errors that might have already
been present in the code and only show me those issues introduced
by the patch itself? If not, how did you identify it?
i dont think checkpatch can work like that way.
identification was easy. i saw checkpatch giving error and noticed you
have modified the code. So i checked the original code if trailing
whitespace was there or not.
regards
sudip
Okay,
I'll re-run this and send a new version in the morning.
Thanks,
Isaac