From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.6 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32EBDC433E0 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 08:55:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08C242065E for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 08:55:41 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1595494541; bh=KOk5LS0g74RiFhSfc98KyCI8H9yYvI8/y2AG0JcWLG8=; h=Date:From:To:List-Id:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID: From; b=CbMwOw5tupaNPYNr0bKo/jIXp5yO1OODwxceGYZyUiY8uwKI0hMlq/8UrmBj4HAUJ /LvLU0Wm/u3lHQJm5OmMMsvBNa00Mh0xxUT6wYK9yoPW3zS2awn0ILzViSAxrnV+1y LP7zrbExo4UL7n4VN0JCEC6ilhrNs9Kzq/4zrn0I= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727111AbgGWIzj (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Jul 2020 04:55:39 -0400 Received: from mail-ej1-f67.google.com ([209.85.218.67]:40938 "EHLO mail-ej1-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725911AbgGWIzj (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Jul 2020 04:55:39 -0400 Received: by mail-ej1-f67.google.com with SMTP id o18so5514928eje.7; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 01:55:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=Xt5+vxpGC9nM/ZHsj3r5gI/nmTDmk9F2oBeOZtyGPQM=; b=ddpnUlIUIV5C0ItojdvfTtAPdsnBCDQMXoF/G1SjnTGBKiFG8k3OVikaOxUm19odph VEFVVmtP/eIlYfyKZmTPAMxK9gW1O/MLXDxdtie4Q9+xMGEieYxirNthaFgrIhC41sig ubX6nkZiF2qCHGc0ghQf6rJdLPIrWWynuYsGef8ztTi8ThASG+r8jGuR7cCldme+GXSd aZxhSnecXiH0HZn6FbRiqKkg6XY3xG7O/E96nXsPeMHMedVxtPw58TcwbnrYuzxNXjQE TNPpHsVKkUXNC5ACLxjnGyCj8ITPMN/EdiMiJH5odImulHMyx3GFuDhKBiVjA/2LpGsZ JhBQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533luptVUqF4R1RVBDBQVtqaDwYwrkDBiLqqUMQVULSFzffhYXjC bjZX9BMt0RRZ8nnDHBFhrEvrC641jr0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwRP+wjzC0Ys2mHygLb4mxZAtf0iTg0JkShIGi/qXx7US6BV7vrg2I5N8csKyuByvVrRm5SwQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:414c:: with SMTP id l12mr3469617ejk.417.1595494536809; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 01:55:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kozik-lap ([194.230.155.213]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id jo25sm1541668ejb.116.2020.07.23.01.55.34 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Thu, 23 Jul 2020 01:55:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 10:55:33 +0200 From: Krzysztof Kozlowski To: Arnd Bergmann List-Id: Cc: Olof Johansson , arm-soc , SoC Team , Markus Mayer , bcm-kernel-feedback-list , Florian Fainelli , Santosh Shilimkar , Matthias Brugger , Roger Quadros , Tony Lindgren , Vladimir Zapolskiy , Thierry Reding , Jonathan Hunter , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Linux ARM , "moderated list:ARM/Mediatek SoC..." , linux-omap , "open list:TEGRA ARCHITECTURE SUPPORT" , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , Greg Kroah-Hartman Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/23] memory: mtk-smi: Add argument to function definition Message-ID: <20200723085533.GA25935@kozik-lap> References: <20200723073744.13400-1-krzk@kernel.org> <20200723073744.13400-19-krzk@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 10:50:08AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 9:39 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > > > Fix checkpatch warning: > > WARNING: function definition argument 'struct device *' should also have an identifier name > > > > Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski > > Is this a bug in checkpatch? I don't see why it should warn about this, > as there is no function definition here. > > Your change is clearly harmless, but I wonder if we should fix > checkpatch instead. Good point. If this were not a warning, I would ignore it. However still the common practice is to add arguments to such type definitions as it helps to describe the type. Best regards, Krzysztof