Re: [PATCH] iio:potentiostat:lmp91000: solve codestyle WARNINGs and CHECKs

[LSO]

Thanks for the review!

On 29/01/2019 20:48, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Tue, 2019-01-29 at 16:36 -0200, Lucas Oshiro wrote:
> > Solve most of the checkpatch.pl WARNINGs and CHECKs on lmp9100.c. They
> > are the following:
> >
> > lmp91000.c:116: CHECK: Unnecessary parentheses around 'state != channel'
> > lmp91000.c:116: CHECK: Unnecessary parentheses around 'channel == LMP91000_REG_MODECN_TEMP'
> > lmp91000.c:214: CHECK: braces {} should be used on all arms of this statement
> > lmp91000.c:216: CHECK: Unbalanced braces around else statement
> > lmp91000.c:258: WARNING: line over 80 characters
> > lmp91000.c:279: CHECK: Please don't use multiple blank lines
>
> Some will say this is too many things to do at once.
> I think it's mostly fine, but there are a few nits
> that also could use fixing.
>
> > diff --git a/drivers/iio/potentiostat/lmp91000.c b/drivers/iio/potentiostat/lmp91000.c
> []
> > @@ -211,9 +211,9 @@ static int lmp91000_read_config(struct lmp91000_data *data)
> >   
> >   	ret = of_property_read_u32(np, "ti,tia-gain-ohm", &val);
> >   	if (ret) {
> > -		if (of_property_read_bool(np, "ti,external-tia-resistor"))
> > +		if (of_property_read_bool(np, "ti,external-tia-resistor")) {
> >   			val = 0;
> > -		else {
> > +		} else {
> >   			dev_err(dev, "no ti,tia-gain-ohm defined");
> >   			return ret;
> >   		}
>
> This could use inverting the test
>
> 	if (ret) {
> 		if (!of_property_read_bool(...)) {
> 			dev_err(dev, "no ti,ti-gain-ohm defined\n");
> 			return ret;
> 		}
> 		val = 0;
> 	}
Thanks for the suggestion, I'll do that in the next version.

> Also the dev_err is missing a '\n' termination

My aim in this patch was only solve style problems, but I
can put that missing '\n' too. Do you think it could be done
in the same commit or it's a better idea do it in another
commit and send both as a patchset?
>