* Re: [PATCH 1/2] FBTFT: fb_sh: Fix alignment and style problems Fixed Coding style issues Signed-off-by: Tamir Suliman <tsuliman@linuxvaults.com>
2018-06-30 14:32 [PATCH 1/2] FBTFT: fb_sh: Fix alignment and style problems Fixed Coding style issues Signed-off-by: Tamir Suliman <tsuliman@linuxvaults.com> Tamir Suliman
@ 2018-06-30 16:09 ` Greg KH
2018-06-30 16:20 ` Joe Perches
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Greg KH @ 2018-06-30 16:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tamir Suliman; +Cc: thomas.petazzoni, linux-kernel, devel
On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 02:32:39PM +0000, Tamir Suliman wrote:
> ---
> drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_sh1106.c | 26 +++++++++++++-------------
> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_sh1106.c b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_sh1106.c
> index 3fc18c0..c18763b 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_sh1106.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_sh1106.c
> @@ -36,27 +36,27 @@ static int init_display(struct fbtft_par *par)
> par->fbtftops.reset(par);
>
> /* Set Display OFF */
> - write_reg(par, 0xAE);
> + write_reg(par, 0xAE);
>
> /* Set Display Clock Divide Ratio/ Oscillator Frequency */
> - write_reg(par, 0xD5, 0x80);
> + write_reg(par, 0xD5, 0x80);
>
> /* Set Multiplex Ratio */
> - write_reg(par, 0xA8, par->info->var.yres - 1);
> + write_reg(par, 0xA8, par->info->var.yres - 1);
>
> /* Set Display Offset */
> - write_reg(par, 0xD3, 0x00);
> + write_reg(par, 0xD3, 0x00);
>
> /* Set Display Start Line */
> - write_reg(par, 0x40 | 0x0);
> + write_reg(par, 0x40 | 0x0);
>
> /* Set Segment Re-map */
> /* column address 127 is mapped to SEG0 */
> - write_reg(par, 0xA0 | 0x1);
> + write_reg(par, 0xA0 | 0x1);
>
> /* Set COM Output Scan Direction */
> /* remapped mode. Scan from COM[N-1] to COM0 */
> - write_reg(par, 0xC8);
> + write_reg(par, 0xC8);
>
> /* Set COM Pins Hardware Configuration */
> if (par->info->var.yres == 64)
> @@ -70,15 +70,15 @@ static int init_display(struct fbtft_par *par)
> write_reg(par, 0xDA, 0x02);
>
> /* Set Pre-charge Period */
> - write_reg(par, 0xD9, 0xF1);
> + write_reg(par, 0xD9, 0xF1);
>
> /* Set VCOMH Deselect Level */
> - write_reg(par, 0xDB, 0x40);
> + write_reg(par, 0xDB, 0x40);
>
> /* Set Display ON */
> - write_reg(par, 0xAF);
> + write_reg(par, 0xAF);
>
> - msleep(150);
> + msleep(150);
>
> return 0;
> }
> @@ -89,8 +89,8 @@ static void set_addr_win(struct fbtft_par *par, int xs, int ys, int xe, int ye)
>
> static int blank(struct fbtft_par *par, bool on)
> {
> - fbtft_par_dbg(DEBUG_BLANK, par, "%s(blank=%s)\n",
> - __func__, on ? "true" : "false");
> + fbtft_par_dbg(DEBUG_BLANK, par, "%s(_func_=%s)\n",
> + __func__, on ? "true" : "false");
>
> write_reg(par, on ? 0xAE : 0xAF);
>
> --
> 1.8.3.1
Hi,
This is the friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman. You have sent him
a patch that has triggered this response. He used to manually respond
to these common problems, but in order to save his sanity (he kept
writing the same thing over and over, yet to different people), I was
created. Hopefully you will not take offence and will fix the problem
in your patch and resubmit it so that it can be accepted into the Linux
kernel tree.
You are receiving this message because of the following common error(s)
as indicated below:
- Your patch does not have a Signed-off-by: line. Please read the
kernel file, Documentation/SubmittingPatches and resend it after
adding that line. Note, the line needs to be in the body of the
email, before the patch, not at the bottom of the patch or in the
email signature.
- Your patch did many different things all at once, making it difficult
to review. All Linux kernel patches need to only do one thing at a
time. If you need to do multiple things (such as clean up all coding
style issues in a file/driver), do it in a sequence of patches, each
one doing only one thing. This will make it easier to review the
patches to ensure that they are correct, and to help alleviate any
merge issues that larger patches can cause.
- You did not specify a description of why the patch is needed, or
possibly, any description at all, in the email body. Please read the
section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the kernel file,
Documentation/SubmittingPatches for what is needed in order to
properly describe the change.
- You did not write a descriptive Subject: for the patch, allowing Greg,
and everyone else, to know what this patch is all about. Please read
the section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the kernel file,
Documentation/SubmittingPatches for what a proper Subject: line should
look like.
If you wish to discuss this problem further, or you have questions about
how to resolve this issue, please feel free to respond to this email and
Greg will reply once he has dug out from the pending patches received
from other developers.
thanks,
greg k-h's patch email bot
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 1/2] FBTFT: fb_sh: Fix alignment and style problems Fixed Coding style issues Signed-off-by: Tamir Suliman <tsuliman@linuxvaults.com>
2018-06-30 14:32 [PATCH 1/2] FBTFT: fb_sh: Fix alignment and style problems Fixed Coding style issues Signed-off-by: Tamir Suliman <tsuliman@linuxvaults.com> Tamir Suliman
2018-06-30 16:09 ` Greg KH
@ 2018-06-30 16:20 ` Joe Perches
2018-07-04 19:58 ` Tamir Suliman
1 sibling, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Joe Perches @ 2018-06-30 16:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tamir Suliman, thomas.petazzoni; +Cc: gregkh, linux-kernel, devel
On Sat, 2018-06-30 at 14:32 +0000, Tamir Suliman wrote:
> ---
> drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_sh1106.c | 26 +++++++++++++-------------
> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
Adding to what Greg's patchbot already wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_sh1106.c b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_sh1106.c
[]
> @@ -36,27 +36,27 @@ static int init_display(struct fbtft_par *par)
> par->fbtftops.reset(par);
>
> /* Set Display OFF */
> - write_reg(par, 0xAE);
> + write_reg(par, 0xAE);
Nope.
You are overly indenting already correctly indented code.
Statements start in the same column unless following an
if/for/do/while/else/case.
> @@ -89,8 +89,8 @@ static void set_addr_win(struct fbtft_par *par, int xs, int ys, int xe, int ye)
>
> static int blank(struct fbtft_par *par, bool on)
> {
> - fbtft_par_dbg(DEBUG_BLANK, par, "%s(blank=%s)\n",
> - __func__, on ? "true" : "false");
> + fbtft_par_dbg(DEBUG_BLANK, par, "%s(_func_=%s)\n",
> + __func__, on ? "true" : "false");
Again, nope.
Here you are misaligning a multi-line continuation
which is correctly aligned to the open parenthesis.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread