On Sat, Oct 31, 2020 at 05:41:03PM +0100, Tabot Kevin wrote:
> This patch fixes the following:
> - Uses __func__ macro to print function names.
> - Got rid of unnecessary braces around single line if statements.
> - End of block comments on a seperate line.
> - A spelling mistake of the word "on".
>
> Signed-off-by: Tabot Kevin <tabot.ke...@gmail.com>
> ---
> drivers/staging/media/atomisp/i2c/atomisp-ov2680.c | 25
> +++++++++++-----------
> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/media/atomisp/i2c/atomisp-ov2680.c
> b/drivers/staging/media/atomisp/i2c/atomisp-ov2680.c
> index c907305..1396a33 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/media/atomisp/i2c/atomisp-ov2680.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/media/atomisp/i2c/atomisp-ov2680.c
> @@ -146,7 +146,7 @@ static int ov2680_g_bin_factor_x(struct v4l2_subdev *sd,
> s32 *val)
> struct ov2680_device *dev = to_ov2680_sensor(sd);
> struct i2c_client *client = v4l2_get_subdevdata(sd);
>
> - dev_dbg(&client->dev, "++++ov2680_g_bin_factor_x\n");
> + dev_dbg(&client->dev, "++++%s\n", __func__);
It might be better just to remove this sort of message.
They are not "wrong wrong" but are they actually useful one a
driver's basic functions work? Even where they are useful
dynamic techniques (ftrace, tracepoints, etc) arguably provide a
better way to support "did my function actually run" debug
approaches anyway.
Daniel.
> *val = ov2680_res[dev->fmt_idx].bin_factor_x;
>
> return 0;
> @@ -158,7 +158,7 @@ static int ov2680_g_bin_factor_y(struct v4l2_subdev *sd,
> s32 *val)
> struct i2c_client *client = v4l2_get_subdevdata(sd);
>
> *val = ov2680_res[dev->fmt_idx].bin_factor_y;
> - dev_dbg(&client->dev, "++++ov2680_g_bin_factor_y\n");
> + dev_dbg(&client->dev, "++++%s\n", __func__);
> return 0;
> }
>
> @@ -173,7 +173,7 @@ static int ov2680_get_intg_factor(struct i2c_client
> *client,
> u16 reg_val;
> int ret;
>
> - dev_dbg(&client->dev, "++++ov2680_get_intg_factor\n");
> + dev_dbg(&client->dev, "++++%s\n", __func__);
> if (!info)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> @@ -251,8 +251,8 @@ static long __ov2680_set_exposure(struct v4l2_subdev *sd,
> int coarse_itg,
> int ret, exp_val;
>
> dev_dbg(&client->dev,
> - "+++++++__ov2680_set_exposure coarse_itg %d, gain %d, digitgain
> %d++\n",
> - coarse_itg, gain, digitgain);
> + "+++++++%s coarse_itg %d, gain %d, digitgain %d++\n",
> + __func__, coarse_itg, gain, digitgain);
>
> vts = ov2680_res[dev->fmt_idx].lines_per_frame;
>
> @@ -461,11 +461,11 @@ static int ov2680_v_flip(struct v4l2_subdev *sd, s32
> value)
> ret = ov2680_read_reg(client, 1, OV2680_FLIP_REG, &val);
> if (ret)
> return ret;
> - if (value) {
> + if (value)
> val |= OV2680_FLIP_MIRROR_BIT_ENABLE;
> - } else {
> + else
> val &= ~OV2680_FLIP_MIRROR_BIT_ENABLE;
> - }
> +
> ret = ov2680_write_reg(client, 1,
> OV2680_FLIP_REG, val);
> if (ret)
> @@ -731,7 +731,8 @@ static int gpio_ctrl(struct v4l2_subdev *sd, bool flag)
> * existing integrations often wire two (reset/power_down)
> * because that is the way other sensors work. There is no
> * way to tell how it is wired internally, so existing
> - * firmwares expose both and we drive them symmetrically. */
> + * firmwares expose both and we drive them symmetrically.
> + */
> if (flag) {
> ret = dev->platform_data->gpio0_ctrl(sd, 1);
> usleep_range(10000, 15000);
> @@ -1060,9 +1061,9 @@ static int ov2680_s_stream(struct v4l2_subdev *sd, int
> enable)
>
> mutex_lock(&dev->input_lock);
> if (enable)
> - dev_dbg(&client->dev, "ov2680_s_stream one\n");
> + dev_dbg(&client->dev, "%s on\n", __func__);
> else
> - dev_dbg(&client->dev, "ov2680_s_stream off\n");
> + dev_dbg(&client->dev, "%s off\n", __func__);
>
> ret = ov2680_write_reg(client, 1, OV2680_SW_STREAM,
> enable ? OV2680_START_STREAMING :
> @@ -1226,7 +1227,7 @@ static int ov2680_remove(struct i2c_client *client)
> struct v4l2_subdev *sd = i2c_get_clientdata(client);
> struct ov2680_device *dev = to_ov2680_sensor(sd);
>
> - dev_dbg(&client->dev, "ov2680_remove...\n");
> + dev_dbg(&client->dev, "%s...\n", __func__);
>
> dev->platform_data->csi_cfg(sd, 0);
>
> --
> 2.7.4
>
