Hi Hannes,
On 04/02/2014 15:50, Hannes Petermaier wrote:
The 80 character thing is reported from checkpatch.pl as WARNING, not as ERROR - so there will be a chance of the patch to become accepted by a custodian.
No, it will *not* be accepted. There must be a very good reason to accept it.
As far as I know, there are only a few warnings that are generally accepted (I think using typedf is one of them).
In between i tried to reformat by Code to obey to these rules, but now checkpatch.pl tells me following:
WARNING: Avoid unnecessary line continuations #531: FILE: board/BuR/bur_tseries/board.c:155:
- if (tps65217_voltage_update(TPS65217_DEFDCDC3, \
Why do you need "" ? It is not a macro, checkpatch is right.
in real life the code section looks like this: /* Set DCDC3 (CORE) voltage to 1.125V */ if (tps65217_voltage_update(TPS65217_DEFDCDC3, \ TPS65217_DCDC_VOLT_SEL_1125MV)) {
Again, you do not need the line continuation because it is not a macro. The compiler knows that the statement is not yet finished.
puts("tps65217_voltage_update failure\n"); return; }
If i don't do the line break at line 155 checkpatch.pl is disturbing me with the 80 character rule.
Simply drop the unnecessary "".
Another thing is linewrapping of output strings, to obey to the rules i have to format the string as following:
if (i2c_probe(TPS65217_CHIP_PM)) { printf("PMIC chip (0x%02x) not present! skipping" \ "further configuration.\n", TPS65217_CHIP_PM); return; }
But this makes it impossible to grep the code in case of an error.
You must combine a more complicate grep, maybe with the -A (after context) option or using a regexp. However, this is not a reason to break the rule.
Best regards, Stefano Babic