On Tue, Jun 16, 2026 at 3:19 AM Markus Elfring <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> 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?
I think the code reads more cleanly that way, but it's not a big deal either way. Alex > > > >> > >> - 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
