>> Move the specification for a line break from a seq_puts() call >> to a seq_printf() call. >> >> The source code was transformed by using the Coccinelle software. >> >> Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <[email protected]> >> --- >> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/amdgpu_dm/amdgpu_dm_debugfs.c | 4 ++-- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/amdgpu_dm/amdgpu_dm_debugfs.c >> b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/amdgpu_dm/amdgpu_dm_debugfs.c >> index 4b09a740f205..6e6f391b640e 100644 >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/amdgpu_dm/amdgpu_dm_debugfs.c >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/amdgpu_dm/amdgpu_dm_debugfs.c >> @@ -1076,9 +1076,9 @@ static int psr_capability_show(struct seq_file *m, >> void *data) >> seq_printf(m, "Sink support: %s", >> str_yes_no(link->dpcd_caps.psr_info.psr_version != 0)); >> if (link->dpcd_caps.psr_info.psr_version) >> seq_printf(m, " [0x%02x]", >> link->dpcd_caps.psr_info.psr_version); >> - seq_puts(m, "\n"); > > Why not just convert this to seq_putc() and drop the rest? It seems > more logical from a code structure perspective.
I obviously propose to omit a function call at this source code place because an intended line break output can be achieved also with the subsequent function call. Do you insist to preserve a similar statement here? >> >> - seq_printf(m, "Driver support: %s", >> str_yes_no(link->psr_settings.psr_feature_enabled)); >> + seq_printf(m, "\nDriver support: %s", >> + str_yes_no(link->psr_settings.psr_feature_enabled)); >> if (link->psr_settings.psr_version) >> seq_printf(m, " [0x%02x]", link->psr_settings.psr_version); >> seq_puts(m, "\n"); Regards, Markus
