Re: [PATCH v4 5/5] i2c: designware: Cleaning comments and formatation

[Jarkko Nikula]

On 12/07/2016 07:55 PM, Luis Oliveira wrote:
> - Missspelling, comment formatation and fix a string of
>   the existing code
>
> Signed-off-by: Luis Oliveira <lolivei@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> Changes V3->V4: (Andy Shevchenko)
> - created a commit message
>
>  drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-common.c |  2 +-
>  drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-slave.c  | 10 ++++++----
>  2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-common.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-common.c
> index 41b38d8b8732..838ef662d2c8 100644
> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-common.c
> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-common.c
> @@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ static char *abort_sources[] = {
>  	[ABRT_TXDATA_NOACK] =
>  		"data not acknowledged",
>  	[ABRT_GCALL_NOACK] =
> -		"no acknowledgement for a general call",
> +		"no acknowledgment for a general call",

I'm not a native speaker but are both acknowledgement and acknowledgment 
ok? I.e. is there need to change?

> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-slave.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-slave.c
> index 1c7f82bb2513..442bc5ce6d47 100644
> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-slave.c
> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-slave.c
> @@ -70,8 +70,8 @@ int i2c_dw_init_slave(struct dw_i2c_dev *dev)
>  		/* Configure register access mode 16bit */
>  		dev->accessor_flags |= ACCESS_16BIT;
>  	} else if (reg != DW_IC_COMP_TYPE_VALUE) {
> -		dev_err(dev->dev, "Unknown Synopsys component type: "
> -			"0x%08x\n", reg);
> +		dev_err(dev->dev,
> +		 "Unknown Synopsys component type: 0x%08x\n", reg);
>  		i2c_dw_release_lock(dev);
>  		return -ENODEV;
>  	}
> @@ -181,8 +181,10 @@ int i2c_dw_reg_slave(struct i2c_client *slave)
>  		return -EBUSY;
>  	if (slave->flags & I2C_CLIENT_TEN)
>  		return -EAFNOSUPPORT;
> -		/* set slave address in the IC_SAR register,
> -		* the address to which the DW_apb_i2c responds */
> +		/*
> +		 * set slave address in the IC_SAR register,
> +		 * the address to which the DW_apb_i2c responds
> +		 */

These two should be done already in the patch 4/5 since it introduced 
the lines that you are changing here.

--
Jarkko