[PATCH] I2C: Coding style cleanups to via686a

On Wednesday 22 June 2005 08:17, Greg KH wrote:
> [PATCH] I2C: Coding style cleanups to via686a
>
> The via686a hardware monitoring driver has infamous coding style at the
> moment. I'd like to clean up the mess before I start working on other
> changes to this driver. Is the following patch acceptable? No code
> change, only coding style (indentation, alignments, trailing white
> space, a few parentheses and a typo).
>
> Signed-off-by: Jean Delvare <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>

Nice.

You missed some. This one is on top of your patch:

Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>

diff --git a/drivers/i2c/chips/via686a.c b/drivers/i2c/chips/via686a.c
index 137d9b7cacd44561023593ab80ab23db78ae66c9..164d47948390d39206537b206c5e11c9a2c6faa1 100644 (file)
--- a/drivers/i2c/chips/via686a.c
+++ b/drivers/i2c/chips/via686a.c
@@ -1,9 +1,9 @@
 /*
     via686a.c - Part of lm_sensors, Linux kernel modules
-                for hardware monitoring
+               for hardware monitoring
 
     Copyright (c) 1998 - 2002  Frodo Looijaard <[email protected]>,
-                        Kyösti Mälkki <[email protected]>,
+                       Kyösti Mälkki <[email protected]>,
                        Mark Studebaker <[email protected]>,
                        and Bob Dougherty <[email protected]>
     (Some conversion-factor data were contributed by Jonathan Teh Soon Yew
@@ -171,18 +171,18 @@ static inline u8 FAN_TO_REG(long rpm, int div)
 /******** TEMP CONVERSIONS (Bob Dougherty) *********/
 /* linear fits from HWMon.cpp (Copyright 1998-2000 Jonathan Teh Soon Yew)
       if(temp<169)
-              return double(temp)*0.427-32.08;
+             return double(temp)*0.427-32.08;
       else if(temp>=169 && temp<=202)
-              return double(temp)*0.582-58.16;
+             return double(temp)*0.582-58.16;
       else
-              return double(temp)*0.924-127.33;
+             return double(temp)*0.924-127.33;
 
  A fifth-order polynomial fits the unofficial data (provided by Alex van
  Kaam <[email protected]>) a bit better.  It also give more reasonable
  numbers on my machine (ie. they agree with what my BIOS tells me).
  Here's the fifth-order fit to the 8-bit data:
  temp = 1.625093e-10*val^5 - 1.001632e-07*val^4 + 2.457653e-05*val^3 -
-        2.967619e-03*val^2 + 2.175144e-01*val - 7.090067e+0.
+       2.967619e-03*val^2 + 2.175144e-01*val - 7.090067e+0.
 
  (2000-10-25- RFD: thanks to Uwe Andersen <[email protected]> for
  finding my typos in this formula!)