On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:35:42AM +0530, Devendra Naga wrote: > fixed some of the coding style problems reported by checkpatch > > Signed-off-by: Devendra Naga <[email protected]> > --- > drivers/staging/rtl8192u/r8180_93cx6.c | 36 > +++++++++++++++++--------------- > 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8192u/r8180_93cx6.c > b/drivers/staging/rtl8192u/r8180_93cx6.c > index 3c515b7..19f5270 100644 > --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8192u/r8180_93cx6.c > +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8192u/r8180_93cx6.c > @@ -22,13 +22,16 @@ > > void eprom_cs(struct net_device *dev, short bit) > { > - if(bit) > + if (bit) { > + /* enable EPROM */ > write_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD, > - (1<<EPROM_CS_SHIFT) | \ > - read_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD)); //enable EPROM > - else > - write_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD, read_nic_byte_E(dev, > EPROM_CMD)\ > - &~(1<<EPROM_CS_SHIFT)); //disable EPROM > + (1<<EPROM_CS_SHIFT) | > + read_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD)); > + } else { > + /* disable EPROM */ > + write_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD, read_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD) > + & ~(1<<EPROM_CS_SHIFT)); > + } > > force_pci_posting(dev); > udelay(EPROM_DELAY); > @@ -38,24 +41,24 @@ void eprom_cs(struct net_device *dev, short bit) > void eprom_ck_cycle(struct net_device *dev) > { > write_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD, > - (1<<EPROM_CK_SHIFT) | read_nic_byte_E(dev,EPROM_CMD)); > + (1<<EPROM_CK_SHIFT) | read_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD)); > force_pci_posting(dev); > udelay(EPROM_DELAY); > write_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD, > - read_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD) &~ (1<<EPROM_CK_SHIFT)); > + read_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD) & ~(1<<EPROM_CK_SHIFT)); > force_pci_posting(dev); > udelay(EPROM_DELAY); > } > > > -void eprom_w(struct net_device *dev,short bit) > +void eprom_w(struct net_device *dev, short bit) > { > - if(bit) > - write_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD, (1<<EPROM_W_SHIFT) | \ > - read_nic_byte_E(dev,EPROM_CMD)); > + if (bit) > + write_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD, (1<<EPROM_W_SHIFT) | > + read_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD)); > else > - write_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD, read_nic_byte_E(dev,EPROM_CMD)\ > - &~(1<<EPROM_W_SHIFT)); > + write_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD, read_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD) > + & ~(1<<EPROM_W_SHIFT)); > > force_pci_posting(dev); > udelay(EPROM_DELAY); > @@ -66,11 +69,10 @@ short eprom_r(struct net_device *dev) > { > short bit; > > - bit=(read_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD) & (1<<EPROM_R_SHIFT) ); > + bit = (read_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD) & (1<<EPROM_R_SHIFT)); > udelay(EPROM_DELAY); > > - if(bit) return 1; > - return 0; > + return !!bit;
Oh come on, really? !! is more "clear" here? No, please be painfully obvious, that's the only way to write kernel code. Not like this. greg k-h _______________________________________________ devel mailing list [email protected] http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
