RE: [PATCH 2/2] hwmon: (pmbus/adp1050): Support adp1051 and adp1055

[Torreno, Alexis Czezar]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, November 7, 2024 12:01 AM
> To: Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Torreno, Alexis Czezar <AlexisCzezar.Torreno@xxxxxxxxxx>; linux-
> doc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-hwmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Sabau, Radu
> bogdan <Radu.Sabau@xxxxxxxxxx>; Jean Delvare <jdelvare@xxxxxxxx>; Rob
> Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx>; Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>; Conor
> Dooley <conor+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>; Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx>; Uwe
> Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] hwmon: (pmbus/adp1050): Support adp1051 and
> adp1055
> 
> [External]
> 
> On Wed, Nov 06, 2024 at 07:55:30AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On 11/6/24 03:24, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 06, 2024 at 05:03:11PM +0800, Alexis Cezar Torreno wrote:
> > > > ADP1051: 6 PWM for I/O Voltage, I/O Current, Temperature
> > > > ADP1055: 6 PWM for I/O Voltage, I/O Current, Power, Temperature
> > >
> > > Missing blank line and perhaps you can add Datasheet: tag(s) for these HW?
> > > (see `git log --no-merges --grep Datasheet:` for the example)
> >
> > Is that an official tag ? Frankly, if so, I think it is quite useless
> > in the patch description because datasheet locations keep changing.
> > I think it is much better to provide a link in the driver documentation.
> 
> I believe it's semi-official, meaning that people use it from time to time.
> I'm fine with the Link in the documentation. Actually with any solution that
> saves the respective link in the kernel source tree (either in form of commit
> message or documentation / comments in the code).
> 

Will add the blank line after description. 
Am I right to understand that we leave this as is? No need to add driver link
in patch description since it is in driver documentation?

> ...
> 
> > > > +static struct pmbus_driver_info adp1055_info = {
> > > > +	.pages = 1,
> > > > +	.format[PSC_VOLTAGE_IN] = linear,
> > > > +	.format[PSC_VOLTAGE_OUT] = linear,
> > > > +	.format[PSC_CURRENT_IN] = linear,
> > > > +	.format[PSC_TEMPERATURE] = linear,
> > > > +	.func[0] = PMBUS_HAVE_VIN | PMBUS_HAVE_IIN |
> PMBUS_HAVE_VOUT
> > > > +		   | PMBUS_HAVE_IOUT | PMBUS_HAVE_TEMP2 |
> PMBUS_HAVE_TEMP3
> > > > +		   | PMBUS_HAVE_POUT | PMBUS_HAVE_STATUS_VOUT
> > > > +		   | PMBUS_HAVE_STATUS_IOUT |
> PMBUS_HAVE_STATUS_INPUT
> > > > +		   | PMBUS_HAVE_STATUS_TEMP,
> > >
> > > Ditto.
> >
> > That one slipped through with the original driver submission.
> > I thought that checkpatch complains about that, but it turns out that
> > it doesn't. I agree, though, that the usual style should be used.
> 
> Oh, okay, that's up to you then.
> 
> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
> 

I based my code style on the original, but I agree that the usual style
should be followed.  
I will change it to follow the usual style.
Should I leave the original untouched or should I format it too?

Regards,
Alexis