[PATCH] staging: sm750fb: rename 'proc_setBLANK'

Rename 'proc_setBLANK' to 'proc_setBLANK' to
conform with kernel style guidelines as reported by checkpatch.pl

CHECK: Avoid CamelCase: <proc_setBLANK>

Signed-off-by: Kisub Choe <redacted>
---
 drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.c | 4 ++--
 drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.h | 2 +-
 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.c b/drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.c
index 1d929aca399c..bb2ade6030c2 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.c

@@ -577,7 +577,7 @@ static int lynxfb_ops_blank(int blank, struct fb_info *info)
 	pr_debug("blank = %d.\n", blank);
 	par = info->par;
 	output = &par->output;
-	return output->proc_setBLANK(output, blank);
+	return output->proc_set_blank(output, blank);
 }
 
 static int sm750fb_set_drv(struct lynxfb_par *par)

@@ -605,7 +605,7 @@ static int sm750fb_set_drv(struct lynxfb_par *par)
 	crtc->ypanstep = 1;
 	crtc->ywrapstep = 0;
 
-	output->proc_setBLANK = (sm750_dev->revid == SM750LE_REVISION_ID) ?
+	output->proc_set_blank = (sm750_dev->revid == SM750LE_REVISION_ID) ?
 				 hw_sm750le_set_blank : hw_sm750_set_blank;
 	/* chip specific phase */
 	sm750_dev->accel.de_wait = (sm750_dev->revid == SM750LE_REVISION_ID) ?

diff --git a/drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.h b/drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.h
index 9cf8b3d30aac..40051798efbf 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.h
+++ b/drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.h

@@ -170,7 +170,7 @@ struct lynxfb_output {
 	 */
 	void *priv;
 
-	int (*proc_setBLANK)(struct lynxfb_output *output, int blank);
+	int (*proc_set_blank)(struct lynxfb_output *output, int blank);
 };
 
 struct lynxfb_par {

-- 
2.34.1

On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 11:15:55PM +0900, Kisub Choe wrote:

Rename 'proc_setBLANK' to 'proc_setBLANK' to

That doesn't rename anything :(

Why do we even need this function pointer?  Why not just do the check
above when it is called instead of this indirection?

thanks,

greg k-h

On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 04:26:10PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:

On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 11:15:55PM +0900, Kisub Choe wrote:

quoted

Rename 'proc_setBLANK' to 'proc_setBLANK' to

That doesn't rename anything :(

Rename 'proc_setBLANK' to 'proc_set_blank' to

quoted

conform with kernel style guidelines as reported by checkpatch.pl

CHECK: Avoid CamelCase: <proc_setBLANK>

Signed-off-by: Kisub Choe <redacted>
---
 drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.c | 4 ++--
 drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.h | 2 +-
 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.c b/drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.c
index 1d929aca399c..bb2ade6030c2 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.c

@@ -577,7 +577,7 @@ static int lynxfb_ops_blank(int blank, struct fb_info *info)
 	pr_debug("blank = %d.\n", blank);
 	par = info->par;
 	output = &par->output;
-	return output->proc_setBLANK(output, blank);
+	return output->proc_set_blank(output, blank);
 }
 
 static int sm750fb_set_drv(struct lynxfb_par *par)

@@ -605,7 +605,7 @@ static int sm750fb_set_drv(struct lynxfb_par *par)
 	crtc->ypanstep = 1;
 	crtc->ywrapstep = 0;
 
-	output->proc_setBLANK = (sm750_dev->revid == SM750LE_REVISION_ID) ?
+	output->proc_set_blank = (sm750_dev->revid == SM750LE_REVISION_ID) ?
 				 hw_sm750le_set_blank : hw_sm750_set_blank;

Why do we even need this function pointer?  Why not just do the check
above when it is called instead of this indirection?

thanks,

greg k-h

Dear Greg,

Here is the updated patch with revised commit message. No code changes.

Regards,
Kisub Choe.

From 9c32c6f5091c8babe54bfde7b3a6de47d9026a55 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Kisub Choe <redacted>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2025 22:55:00 +0900
Subject: [PATCH] staging: sm750fb: rename 'proc_setBLANK'

Rename 'proc_setBLANK' to 'proc_set_blank' to
conform with kernel style guidelines as reported by checkpatch.pl

CHECK: Avoid CamelCase: <proc_setBLANK>

Signed-off-by: Kisub Choe <redacted>
---
 drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.c | 4 ++--
 drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.h | 2 +-
 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.c b/drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.c
index 1d929aca399c..bb2ade6030c2 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.c

@@ -577,7 +577,7 @@ static int lynxfb_ops_blank(int blank, struct fb_info *info)
 	pr_debug("blank = %d.\n", blank);
 	par = info->par;
 	output = &par->output;
-	return output->proc_setBLANK(output, blank);
+	return output->proc_set_blank(output, blank);
 }
 
 static int sm750fb_set_drv(struct lynxfb_par *par)

@@ -605,7 +605,7 @@ static int sm750fb_set_drv(struct lynxfb_par *par)
 	crtc->ypanstep = 1;
 	crtc->ywrapstep = 0;
 
-	output->proc_setBLANK = (sm750_dev->revid == SM750LE_REVISION_ID) ?
+	output->proc_set_blank = (sm750_dev->revid == SM750LE_REVISION_ID) ?
 				 hw_sm750le_set_blank : hw_sm750_set_blank;
 	/* chip specific phase */
 	sm750_dev->accel.de_wait = (sm750_dev->revid == SM750LE_REVISION_ID) ?

diff --git a/drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.h b/drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.h
index 9cf8b3d30aac..40051798efbf 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.h
+++ b/drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.h

@@ -170,7 +170,7 @@ struct lynxfb_output {
 	 */
 	void *priv;
 
-	int (*proc_setBLANK)(struct lynxfb_output *output, int blank);
+	int (*proc_set_blank)(struct lynxfb_output *output, int blank);
 };
 
 struct lynxfb_par {

-- 
2.34.1

On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 10:12:13PM +0900, Kisub Choe wrote:

On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 04:26:10PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 11:15:55PM +0900, Kisub Choe wrote:

quoted

Rename 'proc_setBLANK' to 'proc_setBLANK' to

That doesn't rename anything :(

Rename 'proc_setBLANK' to 'proc_set_blank' to

quoted

quoted

conform with kernel style guidelines as reported by checkpatch.pl

CHECK: Avoid CamelCase: <proc_setBLANK>

Signed-off-by: Kisub Choe <redacted>
---
 drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.c | 4 ++--
 drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.h | 2 +-
 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.c b/drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.c
index 1d929aca399c..bb2ade6030c2 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.c

@@ -577,7 +577,7 @@ static int lynxfb_ops_blank(int blank, struct fb_info *info)
 	pr_debug("blank = %d.\n", blank);
 	par = info->par;
 	output = &par->output;
-	return output->proc_setBLANK(output, blank);
+	return output->proc_set_blank(output, blank);
 }
 
 static int sm750fb_set_drv(struct lynxfb_par *par)

@@ -605,7 +605,7 @@ static int sm750fb_set_drv(struct lynxfb_par *par)
 	crtc->ypanstep = 1;
 	crtc->ywrapstep = 0;
 
-	output->proc_setBLANK = (sm750_dev->revid == SM750LE_REVISION_ID) ?
+	output->proc_set_blank = (sm750_dev->revid == SM750LE_REVISION_ID) ?
 				 hw_sm750le_set_blank : hw_sm750_set_blank;

Why do we even need this function pointer?  Why not just do the check
above when it is called instead of this indirection?

thanks,

greg k-h

Dear Greg,

Here is the updated patch with revised commit message. No code changes.

Please read the documentation for how to send an updated patch (hint, it
needs to be a new version).

Also, see my comments above about what you should do here instead of
just renaming the variable.  Please make that change which will remove
the variable entirely.

thanks,

greg k-h

On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 03:24:26PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:

On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 10:12:13PM +0900, Kisub Choe wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 04:26:10PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 11:15:55PM +0900, Kisub Choe wrote:

quoted

Rename 'proc_setBLANK' to 'proc_setBLANK' to

That doesn't rename anything :(

Rename 'proc_setBLANK' to 'proc_set_blank' to

quoted

quoted

conform with kernel style guidelines as reported by checkpatch.pl

CHECK: Avoid CamelCase: <proc_setBLANK>

Signed-off-by: Kisub Choe <redacted>
---
 drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.c | 4 ++--
 drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.h | 2 +-
 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.c b/drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.c
index 1d929aca399c..bb2ade6030c2 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.c

@@ -577,7 +577,7 @@ static int lynxfb_ops_blank(int blank, struct fb_info *info)
 	pr_debug("blank = %d.\n", blank);
 	par = info->par;
 	output = &par->output;
-	return output->proc_setBLANK(output, blank);
+	return output->proc_set_blank(output, blank);
 }
 
 static int sm750fb_set_drv(struct lynxfb_par *par)

@@ -605,7 +605,7 @@ static int sm750fb_set_drv(struct lynxfb_par *par)
 	crtc->ypanstep = 1;
 	crtc->ywrapstep = 0;
 
-	output->proc_setBLANK = (sm750_dev->revid == SM750LE_REVISION_ID) ?
+	output->proc_set_blank = (sm750_dev->revid == SM750LE_REVISION_ID) ?
 				 hw_sm750le_set_blank : hw_sm750_set_blank;

Why do we even need this function pointer?  Why not just do the check
above when it is called instead of this indirection?

thanks,

greg k-h

Dear Greg,

Here is the updated patch with revised commit message. No code changes.

Please read the documentation for how to send an updated patch (hint, it
needs to be a new version).

Also, see my comments above about what you should do here instead of
just renaming the variable.  Please make that change which will remove
the variable entirely.

thanks,

greg k-h

Thank you for feedback.

I was wondering if you could share additional feedback regarding
pros and cons calling a function directly based on the condition instead of the
current implementation?

Regards,
Kisub Choe.

On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 10:49:24PM +0900, Kisub Choe wrote:

On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 03:24:26PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 10:12:13PM +0900, Kisub Choe wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 04:26:10PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 11:15:55PM +0900, Kisub Choe wrote:

quoted

Rename 'proc_setBLANK' to 'proc_setBLANK' to

That doesn't rename anything :(

Rename 'proc_setBLANK' to 'proc_set_blank' to

quoted

quoted

conform with kernel style guidelines as reported by checkpatch.pl

CHECK: Avoid CamelCase: <proc_setBLANK>

Signed-off-by: Kisub Choe <redacted>
---
 drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.c | 4 ++--
 drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.h | 2 +-
 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.c b/drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.c
index 1d929aca399c..bb2ade6030c2 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.c

@@ -577,7 +577,7 @@ static int lynxfb_ops_blank(int blank, struct fb_info *info)
 	pr_debug("blank = %d.\n", blank);
 	par = info->par;
 	output = &par->output;
-	return output->proc_setBLANK(output, blank);
+	return output->proc_set_blank(output, blank);
 }
 
 static int sm750fb_set_drv(struct lynxfb_par *par)

@@ -605,7 +605,7 @@ static int sm750fb_set_drv(struct lynxfb_par *par)
 	crtc->ypanstep = 1;
 	crtc->ywrapstep = 0;
 
-	output->proc_setBLANK = (sm750_dev->revid == SM750LE_REVISION_ID) ?
+	output->proc_set_blank = (sm750_dev->revid == SM750LE_REVISION_ID) ?
 				 hw_sm750le_set_blank : hw_sm750_set_blank;

Why do we even need this function pointer?  Why not just do the check
above when it is called instead of this indirection?

thanks,

greg k-h

Dear Greg,

Here is the updated patch with revised commit message. No code changes.

Please read the documentation for how to send an updated patch (hint, it
needs to be a new version).

Also, see my comments above about what you should do here instead of
just renaming the variable.  Please make that change which will remove
the variable entirely.

thanks,

greg k-h

Thank you for feedback.

I was wondering if you could share additional feedback regarding
pros and cons calling a function directly based on the condition instead of the
current implementation?

I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader to complete :)

have fun!

greg k-h

On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 03:52:53PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:

On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 10:49:24PM +0900, Kisub Choe wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 03:24:26PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 10:12:13PM +0900, Kisub Choe wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 04:26:10PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 11:15:55PM +0900, Kisub Choe wrote:

quoted

Rename 'proc_setBLANK' to 'proc_setBLANK' to

That doesn't rename anything :(

Rename 'proc_setBLANK' to 'proc_set_blank' to

quoted

quoted

conform with kernel style guidelines as reported by checkpatch.pl

CHECK: Avoid CamelCase: <proc_setBLANK>

Signed-off-by: Kisub Choe <redacted>
---
 drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.c | 4 ++--
 drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.h | 2 +-
 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.c b/drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.c
index 1d929aca399c..bb2ade6030c2 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.c

@@ -577,7 +577,7 @@ static int lynxfb_ops_blank(int blank, struct fb_info *info)
 	pr_debug("blank = %d.\n", blank);
 	par = info->par;
 	output = &par->output;
-	return output->proc_setBLANK(output, blank);
+	return output->proc_set_blank(output, blank);
 }
 
 static int sm750fb_set_drv(struct lynxfb_par *par)

@@ -605,7 +605,7 @@ static int sm750fb_set_drv(struct lynxfb_par *par)
 	crtc->ypanstep = 1;
 	crtc->ywrapstep = 0;
 
-	output->proc_setBLANK = (sm750_dev->revid == SM750LE_REVISION_ID) ?
+	output->proc_set_blank = (sm750_dev->revid == SM750LE_REVISION_ID) ?
 				 hw_sm750le_set_blank : hw_sm750_set_blank;

Why do we even need this function pointer?  Why not just do the check
above when it is called instead of this indirection?

thanks,

greg k-h

Dear Greg,

Here is the updated patch with revised commit message. No code changes.

Please read the documentation for how to send an updated patch (hint, it
needs to be a new version).

Also, see my comments above about what you should do here instead of
just renaming the variable.  Please make that change which will remove
the variable entirely.

thanks,

greg k-h

Thank you for feedback.

I was wondering if you could share additional feedback regarding
pros and cons calling a function directly based on the condition instead of the
current implementation?

I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader to complete :)

have fun!

greg k-h

Thank you!
Let me try to make changes and update.

Regards,
Kisub Choe.