From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mason Subject: Re: [PATCH v8] mtd: nand: add tango NAND flash controller support Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 17:01:52 +0100 Message-ID: <5825EB70.4070406@free.fr> References: <580F5AD2.9020909@sigmadesigns.com> <580F5B37.5090100@sigmadesigns.com> <580F8407.5070706@sigmadesigns.com> <20161106235812.0bcbbdc5@bbrezillon> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20161106235812.0bcbbdc5@bbrezillon> Sender: devicetree-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Boris Brezillon Cc: Marc Gonzalez , linux-mtd , Richard Weinberger , DT , Rob Herring , Mark Rutland , Sebastian Frias List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 06/11/2016 23:58, Boris Brezillon wrote: > Applied after fixing a few coding style issues to make checkpatch happy. First of all, I want to thank you for all the help you provided along the way. I have to admit that I'm a bit frustrated by some of the changes you made to the patch. Specifically, changing from: if (ptr_expr == NULL) to: if (!ptr_expr) I dislike the second form, because it "hides" what is being tested. I've even seen people use !count to mean count == 0, and I find that very unintuitive. I also have a hard time discerning a '!' after a '(' The other change is the chip->options initialization. I thought you said on IRC I could keep my preferred formatting. In the end, these are tiny issues in the grand scheme of things, but it was important for me to point them out. Regards. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp2-g21.free.fr ([212.27.42.2]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.85_2 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1c5EHk-0003EX-0W for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 11 Nov 2016 16:02:37 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH v8] mtd: nand: add tango NAND flash controller support To: Boris Brezillon Cc: Marc Gonzalez , linux-mtd , Richard Weinberger , DT , Rob Herring , Mark Rutland , Sebastian Frias References: <580F5AD2.9020909@sigmadesigns.com> <580F5B37.5090100@sigmadesigns.com> <580F8407.5070706@sigmadesigns.com> <20161106235812.0bcbbdc5@bbrezillon> From: Mason Message-ID: <5825EB70.4070406@free.fr> Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 17:01:52 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20161106235812.0bcbbdc5@bbrezillon> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 06/11/2016 23:58, Boris Brezillon wrote: > Applied after fixing a few coding style issues to make checkpatch happy. First of all, I want to thank you for all the help you provided along the way. I have to admit that I'm a bit frustrated by some of the changes you made to the patch. Specifically, changing from: if (ptr_expr == NULL) to: if (!ptr_expr) I dislike the second form, because it "hides" what is being tested. I've even seen people use !count to mean count == 0, and I find that very unintuitive. I also have a hard time discerning a '!' after a '(' The other change is the chip->options initialization. I thought you said on IRC I could keep my preferred formatting. In the end, these are tiny issues in the grand scheme of things, but it was important for me to point them out. Regards.