Sending this mail again as I missed to reply to all. Hi Alex,
I agree those are called bit-field member names rather than labels. But the reason I mentioned is because the ./scripts/checkpatch.pl gave out a warning saying "labels should not be indented".
Sorry for the confusion in the name I referred to. So, I think this change is needed as I feel this is not following the coding-style by having indent before the width for bit field member. I went through other places in source code to make sure this is correct, and sent the patch after confirmation.
Regards, Manikishan Ghantasala
On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 at 19:13, Alex Elder elder@ieee.org wrote:
On 6/2/21 8:36 AM, sh4nnu wrote:
From: Manikishan Ghantasala manikishanghantasala@gmail.com
staging: greybus: gpio.c: Clear coding-style problem "labels should not be indented" by removing indentation.
These are not labels.
I don't really understand what you're doing here.
Can you please explain why you think this needs changing?
-AlexSigned-off-by: Manikishan Ghantasala manikishanghantasala@gmail.com
drivers/staging/greybus/gpio.c | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/staging/greybus/gpio.c b/drivers/staging/greybus/gpio.c index 7e6347fe93f9..4661f4a251bd 100644 --- a/drivers/staging/greybus/gpio.c +++ b/drivers/staging/greybus/gpio.c @@ -20,9 +20,9 @@ struct gb_gpio_line { /* The following has to be an array of line_max entries */ /* --> make them just a flags field */
u8 active: 1,direction: 1, /* 0 = output, 1 = input */value: 1; /* 0 = low, 1 = high */
u8 active:1,direction:1, /* 0 = output, 1 = input */value:1; /* 0 = low, 1 = high */ u16 debounce_usec; u8 irq_type;