Fix checkpatch check "CHECK:Alignment should match open parenthesis"

Signed-off-by: Akhil Varkey <akhilvarkey@disroot.org>
---

Hello, This is my first patch, I appreciate any feedbacks. Thanks!!
---
 drivers/staging/greybus/power_supply.c | 14 +++++++-------
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/staging/greybus/power_supply.c b/drivers/staging/greybus/power_supply.c
index 2ef46822f676..a484c0ca058d 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/greybus/power_supply.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/greybus/power_supply.c
@@ -324,7 +324,7 @@ static struct gb_power_supply_prop *get_psy_prop(struct gb_power_supply *gbpsy,
 }
 
 static int is_psy_prop_writeable(struct gb_power_supply *gbpsy,
-				     enum power_supply_property psp)
+				 enum power_supply_property psp)
 {
 	struct gb_power_supply_prop *prop;
 
@@ -493,7 +493,7 @@ static int gb_power_supply_description_get(struct gb_power_supply *gbpsy)
 	if (!gbpsy->model_name)
 		return -ENOMEM;
 	gbpsy->serial_number = kstrndup(resp.serial_number, PROP_MAX,
-				       GFP_KERNEL);
+					GFP_KERNEL);
 	if (!gbpsy->serial_number)
 		return -ENOMEM;
 
@@ -546,7 +546,7 @@ static int gb_power_supply_prop_descriptors_get(struct gb_power_supply *gbpsy)
 	}
 
 	gbpsy->props = kcalloc(gbpsy->properties_count, sizeof(*gbpsy->props),
-			      GFP_KERNEL);
+			       GFP_KERNEL);
 	if (!gbpsy->props) {
 		ret = -ENOMEM;
 		goto out_put_operation;
@@ -634,8 +634,8 @@ static int __gb_power_supply_property_get(struct gb_power_supply *gbpsy,
 }
 
 static int __gb_power_supply_property_strval_get(struct gb_power_supply *gbpsy,
-						enum power_supply_property psp,
-						union power_supply_propval *val)
+						 enum power_supply_property psp,
+						 union power_supply_propval *val)
 {
 	switch (psp) {
 	case POWER_SUPPLY_PROP_MODEL_NAME:
@@ -943,8 +943,8 @@ static int gb_power_supplies_setup(struct gb_power_supplies *supplies)
 		goto out;
 
 	supplies->supply = kcalloc(supplies->supplies_count,
-				     sizeof(struct gb_power_supply),
-				     GFP_KERNEL);
+				   sizeof(struct gb_power_supply),
+				   GFP_KERNEL);
 
 	if (!supplies->supply) {
 		ret = -ENOMEM;
-- 
2.47.2

Hey Akhil,
Thanks for your patch.

All looks good with the exception of a small nit...

On Mon Jul 14, 2025 at 2:56 PM WEST, Akhil Varkey wrote:

> Fix checkpatch check "CHECK:Alignment should match open parenthesis"
>
> Signed-off-by: Akhil Varkey <akhilvarkey@disroot.org>
> ---
>
> Hello, This is my first patch, I appreciate any feedbacks. Thanks!!

Welcome, and continue...

> ---
>  drivers/staging/greybus/power_supply.c | 14 +++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/greybus/power_supply.c b/drivers/staging/greybus/power_supply.c
> index 2ef46822f676..a484c0ca058d 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/greybus/power_supply.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/greybus/power_supply.c
> @@ -324,7 +324,7 @@ static struct gb_power_supply_prop *get_psy_prop(struct gb_power_supply *gbpsy,
>  }
>  
>  static int is_psy_prop_writeable(struct gb_power_supply *gbpsy,
> -				     enum power_supply_property psp)
> +				 enum power_supply_property psp)
>  {
>  	struct gb_power_supply_prop *prop;
>  
> @@ -493,7 +493,7 @@ static int gb_power_supply_description_get(struct gb_power_supply *gbpsy)
>  	if (!gbpsy->model_name)
>  		return -ENOMEM;
>  	gbpsy->serial_number = kstrndup(resp.serial_number, PROP_MAX,
> -				       GFP_KERNEL);
> +					GFP_KERNEL);
>  	if (!gbpsy->serial_number)
>  		return -ENOMEM;
>  
> @@ -546,7 +546,7 @@ static int gb_power_supply_prop_descriptors_get(struct gb_power_supply *gbpsy)
>  	}
>  
>  	gbpsy->props = kcalloc(gbpsy->properties_count, sizeof(*gbpsy->props),
> -			      GFP_KERNEL);
> +			       GFP_KERNEL);
>  	if (!gbpsy->props) {
>  		ret = -ENOMEM;
>  		goto out_put_operation;
> @@ -634,8 +634,8 @@ static int __gb_power_supply_property_get(struct gb_power_supply *gbpsy,
>  }
>  
>  static int __gb_power_supply_property_strval_get(struct gb_power_supply *gbpsy,
> -						enum power_supply_property psp,
> -						union power_supply_propval *val)
> +						 enum power_supply_property psp,
> +						 union power_supply_propval *val)

Here you fix the alignment, but the last line goes over column 81, even
though 80 is not really one hard requirement anymore, all code
(strings is ok to go over to be easier to grep for messages) is on that
register.

So, to be coherent, if you could please send a V2 without this specific change
would be great, Or even better, if you could get rid of all the _ and __
prefixes in functions names that would be great, and will give more
space for function paramethers.
Your call.

Also, gives you also the chance to practice to send a new
version ;).

Cheers,
    Rui

>  {
>  	switch (psp) {
>  	case POWER_SUPPLY_PROP_MODEL_NAME:
> @@ -943,8 +943,8 @@ static int gb_power_supplies_setup(struct gb_power_supplies *supplies)
>  		goto out;
>  
>  	supplies->supply = kcalloc(supplies->supplies_count,
> -				     sizeof(struct gb_power_supply),
> -				     GFP_KERNEL);
> +				   sizeof(struct gb_power_supply),
> +				   GFP_KERNEL);
>  
>  	if (!supplies->supply) {
>  		ret = -ENOMEM;
> -- 
> 2.47.2

On Mon, Jul 14, 2025 at 05:38:31PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva wrote:
> Hey Akhil,
> Thanks for your patch.
> 
> All looks good with the exception of a small nit...
> 
> On Mon Jul 14, 2025 at 2:56 PM WEST, Akhil Varkey wrote:
> 
> > Fix checkpatch check "CHECK:Alignment should match open parenthesis"
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Akhil Varkey <akhilvarkey@disroot.org>
> > ---
> >
> > Hello, This is my first patch, I appreciate any feedbacks. Thanks!!
> 
> Welcome, and continue...
> 
> > ---
> >  drivers/staging/greybus/power_supply.c | 14 +++++++-------
> >  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/greybus/power_supply.c b/drivers/staging/greybus/power_supply.c
> > index 2ef46822f676..a484c0ca058d 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/greybus/power_supply.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/greybus/power_supply.c
> > @@ -324,7 +324,7 @@ static struct gb_power_supply_prop *get_psy_prop(struct gb_power_supply *gbpsy,
> >  }
> >  
> >  static int is_psy_prop_writeable(struct gb_power_supply *gbpsy,
> > -				     enum power_supply_property psp)
> > +				 enum power_supply_property psp)
> >  {
> >  	struct gb_power_supply_prop *prop;
> >  
> > @@ -493,7 +493,7 @@ static int gb_power_supply_description_get(struct gb_power_supply *gbpsy)
> >  	if (!gbpsy->model_name)
> >  		return -ENOMEM;
> >  	gbpsy->serial_number = kstrndup(resp.serial_number, PROP_MAX,
> > -				       GFP_KERNEL);
> > +					GFP_KERNEL);
> >  	if (!gbpsy->serial_number)
> >  		return -ENOMEM;
> >  
> > @@ -546,7 +546,7 @@ static int gb_power_supply_prop_descriptors_get(struct gb_power_supply *gbpsy)
> >  	}
> >  
> >  	gbpsy->props = kcalloc(gbpsy->properties_count, sizeof(*gbpsy->props),
> > -			      GFP_KERNEL);
> > +			       GFP_KERNEL);
> >  	if (!gbpsy->props) {
> >  		ret = -ENOMEM;
> >  		goto out_put_operation;
> > @@ -634,8 +634,8 @@ static int __gb_power_supply_property_get(struct gb_power_supply *gbpsy,
> >  }
> >  
> >  static int __gb_power_supply_property_strval_get(struct gb_power_supply *gbpsy,
> > -						enum power_supply_property psp,
> > -						union power_supply_propval *val)
> > +						 enum power_supply_property psp,
> > +						 union power_supply_propval *val)
> 
> Here you fix the alignment, but the last line goes over column 81, even
> though 80 is not really one hard requirement anymore, all code
> (strings is ok to go over to be easier to grep for messages) is on that
> register.
> 
> So, to be coherent, if you could please send a V2 without this specific change
> would be great, Or even better, if you could get rid of all the _ and __
> prefixes in functions names that would be great, and will give more
> space for function paramethers.
> Your call.

Nah, this is fine as-is, we can go over the limit to 100 for tiny stuff
like this.

And the __ prefixes should be there to show no locking, or "internal"
functions, right?  So changing the name needs to happen very carefully.

thanks,

greg k-h

Hey Greg,
On Tue Jul 15, 2025 at 9:05 AM WEST, Greg KH wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 14, 2025 at 05:38:31PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva wrote:
>> Hey Akhil,
>> Thanks for your patch.
>> 
>> All looks good with the exception of a small nit...
>> 
>> On Mon Jul 14, 2025 at 2:56 PM WEST, Akhil Varkey wrote:
>> 
>> > Fix checkpatch check "CHECK:Alignment should match open parenthesis"
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Akhil Varkey <akhilvarkey@disroot.org>
>> > ---
>> >
>> > Hello, This is my first patch, I appreciate any feedbacks. Thanks!!
>> 
>> Welcome, and continue...
>> 
>> > ---
>> >  drivers/staging/greybus/power_supply.c | 14 +++++++-------
>> >  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/greybus/power_supply.c b/drivers/staging/greybus/power_supply.c
>> > index 2ef46822f676..a484c0ca058d 100644
>> > --- a/drivers/staging/greybus/power_supply.c
>> > +++ b/drivers/staging/greybus/power_supply.c
>> > @@ -324,7 +324,7 @@ static struct gb_power_supply_prop *get_psy_prop(struct gb_power_supply *gbpsy,
>> >  }
>> >  
>> >  static int is_psy_prop_writeable(struct gb_power_supply *gbpsy,
>> > -				     enum power_supply_property psp)
>> > +				 enum power_supply_property psp)
>> >  {
>> >  	struct gb_power_supply_prop *prop;
>> >  
>> > @@ -493,7 +493,7 @@ static int gb_power_supply_description_get(struct gb_power_supply *gbpsy)
>> >  	if (!gbpsy->model_name)
>> >  		return -ENOMEM;
>> >  	gbpsy->serial_number = kstrndup(resp.serial_number, PROP_MAX,
>> > -				       GFP_KERNEL);
>> > +					GFP_KERNEL);
>> >  	if (!gbpsy->serial_number)
>> >  		return -ENOMEM;
>> >  
>> > @@ -546,7 +546,7 @@ static int gb_power_supply_prop_descriptors_get(struct gb_power_supply *gbpsy)
>> >  	}
>> >  
>> >  	gbpsy->props = kcalloc(gbpsy->properties_count, sizeof(*gbpsy->props),
>> > -			      GFP_KERNEL);
>> > +			       GFP_KERNEL);
>> >  	if (!gbpsy->props) {
>> >  		ret = -ENOMEM;
>> >  		goto out_put_operation;
>> > @@ -634,8 +634,8 @@ static int __gb_power_supply_property_get(struct gb_power_supply *gbpsy,
>> >  }
>> >  
>> >  static int __gb_power_supply_property_strval_get(struct gb_power_supply *gbpsy,
>> > -						enum power_supply_property psp,
>> > -						union power_supply_propval *val)
>> > +						 enum power_supply_property psp,
>> > +						 union power_supply_propval *val)
>> 
>> Here you fix the alignment, but the last line goes over column 81, even
>> though 80 is not really one hard requirement anymore, all code
>> (strings is ok to go over to be easier to grep for messages) is on that
>> register.
>> 
>> So, to be coherent, if you could please send a V2 without this specific change
>> would be great, Or even better, if you could get rid of all the _ and __
>> prefixes in functions names that would be great, and will give more
>> space for function paramethers.
>> Your call.
>
> Nah, this is fine as-is, we can go over the limit to 100 for tiny stuff
> like this.
>
> And the __ prefixes should be there to show no locking, or "internal"
> functions, right?  So changing the name needs to happen very carefully.

Yup, we can go either way here. I do not have strong feelings about
this.

So, LGTM, Thanks Akhil.
Reviewed-by: Rui Miguel Silva <rui.silva@linaro.org>

Cheers,
    Rui

>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h

Hi Rui and Greg,

On 15/07/25 11:10, Rui Miguel Silva wrote:
> Hey Greg,
> On Tue Jul 15, 2025 at 9:05 AM WEST, Greg KH wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, Jul 14, 2025 at 05:38:31PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva wrote:
>>> Hey Akhil,
>>> Thanks for your patch.
>>>
>>> All looks good with the exception of a small nit...
>>>
>>> On Mon Jul 14, 2025 at 2:56 PM WEST, Akhil Varkey wrote:
>>>
>>>> Fix checkpatch check "CHECK:Alignment should match open parenthesis"
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Akhil Varkey <akhilvarkey@disroot.org>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> Hello, This is my first patch, I appreciate any feedbacks. Thanks!!
>>>
>>> Welcome, and continue...
>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>   drivers/staging/greybus/power_supply.c | 14 +++++++-------
>>>>   1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/greybus/power_supply.c b/drivers/staging/greybus/power_supply.c
>>>> index 2ef46822f676..a484c0ca058d 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/staging/greybus/power_supply.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/staging/greybus/power_supply.c
>>>> @@ -324,7 +324,7 @@ static struct gb_power_supply_prop *get_psy_prop(struct gb_power_supply *gbpsy,
>>>>   }
>>>>   
>>>>   static int is_psy_prop_writeable(struct gb_power_supply *gbpsy,
>>>> -				     enum power_supply_property psp)
>>>> +				 enum power_supply_property psp)
>>>>   {
>>>>   	struct gb_power_supply_prop *prop;
>>>>   
>>>> @@ -493,7 +493,7 @@ static int gb_power_supply_description_get(struct gb_power_supply *gbpsy)
>>>>   	if (!gbpsy->model_name)
>>>>   		return -ENOMEM;
>>>>   	gbpsy->serial_number = kstrndup(resp.serial_number, PROP_MAX,
>>>> -				       GFP_KERNEL);
>>>> +					GFP_KERNEL);
>>>>   	if (!gbpsy->serial_number)
>>>>   		return -ENOMEM;
>>>>   
>>>> @@ -546,7 +546,7 @@ static int gb_power_supply_prop_descriptors_get(struct gb_power_supply *gbpsy)
>>>>   	}
>>>>   
>>>>   	gbpsy->props = kcalloc(gbpsy->properties_count, sizeof(*gbpsy->props),
>>>> -			      GFP_KERNEL);
>>>> +			       GFP_KERNEL);
>>>>   	if (!gbpsy->props) {
>>>>   		ret = -ENOMEM;
>>>>   		goto out_put_operation;
>>>> @@ -634,8 +634,8 @@ static int __gb_power_supply_property_get(struct gb_power_supply *gbpsy,
>>>>   }
>>>>   
>>>>   static int __gb_power_supply_property_strval_get(struct gb_power_supply *gbpsy,
>>>> -						enum power_supply_property psp,
>>>> -						union power_supply_propval *val)
>>>> +						 enum power_supply_property psp,
>>>> +						 union power_supply_propval *val)
>>>
>>> Here you fix the alignment, but the last line goes over column 81, even
>>> though 80 is not really one hard requirement anymore, all code
>>> (strings is ok to go over to be easier to grep for messages) is on that
>>> register.
>>>
>>> So, to be coherent, if you could please send a V2 without this specific change
>>> would be great, Or even better, if you could get rid of all the _ and __
>>> prefixes in functions names that would be great, and will give more
>>> space for function paramethers.
>>> Your call.
>>
>> Nah, this is fine as-is, we can go over the limit to 100 for tiny stuff
>> like this.
>>
>> And the __ prefixes should be there to show no locking, or "internal"
>> functions, right?  So changing the name needs to happen very carefully.
> 
> Yup, we can go either way here. I do not have strong feelings about
> this.
> 
> So, LGTM, Thanks Akhil.
> Reviewed-by: Rui Miguel Silva <rui.silva@linaro.org>
> 
> Cheers,
>      Rui
> 
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> greg k-h
> 
> 
> 

Thanks accepting my patches and for the suggestions on what could be 
done better.

Best Regards,
Akhil Varkey