Re: [PATCH] staging: sm750: Rename camel case functions in sm750_cursor.*

[Kloudifold]

On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 at 05:39, Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> You don't need the filename in the subject.
>
> On Sat, 11 Mar 2023, Kloudifold wrote:
>
> > This patch fixes the "CHECK: Avoid CamelCase" reported by
> > checkpatch.pl by renaming camel case functions.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Kloudifold <cloudifold.3125@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750_cursor.c | 14 +++++++-------
> >  drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750_cursor.h | 12 ++++++------
> >  2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750_cursor.c b/drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750_cursor.c
> > index 43e6f52c2..ff643e33f 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750_cursor.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750_cursor.c
> > @@ -58,13 +58,13 @@ void sm750_hw_cursor_disable(struct lynx_cursor *cursor)
> >       poke32(HWC_ADDRESS, 0);
> >  }
> >
> > -void sm750_hw_cursor_setSize(struct lynx_cursor *cursor, int w, int h)
> > +void sm750_hw_cursor_set_size(struct lynx_cursor *cursor, int w, int h)
> >  {
> >       cursor->w = w;
> >       cursor->h = h;
> >  }
> >
> > -void sm750_hw_cursor_setPos(struct lynx_cursor *cursor, int x, int y)
> > +void sm750_hw_cursor_set_pos(struct lynx_cursor *cursor, int x, int y)
> >  {
> >       u32 reg;
> >
> > @@ -73,7 +73,7 @@ void sm750_hw_cursor_setPos(struct lynx_cursor *cursor, int x, int y)
> >       poke32(HWC_LOCATION, reg);
> >  }
> >
> > -void sm750_hw_cursor_setColor(struct lynx_cursor *cursor, u32 fg, u32 bg)
> > +void sm750_hw_cursor_set_color(struct lynx_cursor *cursor, u32 fg, u32 bg)
> >  {
> >       u32 reg = (fg << HWC_COLOR_12_2_RGB565_SHIFT) &
> >               HWC_COLOR_12_2_RGB565_MASK;
> > @@ -82,8 +82,8 @@ void sm750_hw_cursor_setColor(struct lynx_cursor *cursor, u32 fg, u32 bg)
> >       poke32(HWC_COLOR_3, 0xffe0);
> >  }
> >
> > -void sm750_hw_cursor_setData(struct lynx_cursor *cursor, u16 rop,
> > -                          const u8 *pcol, const u8 *pmsk)
> > +void sm750_hw_cursor_set_data(struct lynx_cursor *cursor, u16 rop,
> > +                           const u8 *pcol, const u8 *pmsk)
>
> The indentation of the second line looks random.  It's not a multiple of
> the tabs, and it doesn't line up with the right side of the (.  So there
> doesn't seem to be any need to change it for this patch.
>

Acturally, if you set tabs be 8 characters as it said in Linux kernel coding
style, it lines up with the right side of the (.

The checkpatch.pl didn't say "CHECK: Alignment should match open parenthesis".

It shows up didn't line up the ( may because tabs are 4 characters in
mails.

So, should I just change the subject of the email? If I want to resend this patch,
should I make it a reply to this current discussion string or something else?