Sat, Jun 21, 2025 at 08:06:49PM +0200, Lothar Rubusch kirjoitti: [...] > > > + ret = regmap_read(st->regmap, ADXL345_REG_ACT_INACT_CTRL, &axis_ctrl); > > > + if (ret) > > > + return ret; > > > + > > > + switch (type) { > > > + case ADXL345_ACTIVITY: > > > + en = FIELD_GET(ADXL345_ACT_X_EN, axis_ctrl) | > > > + FIELD_GET(ADXL345_ACT_Y_EN, axis_ctrl) | > > > + FIELD_GET(ADXL345_ACT_Z_EN, axis_ctrl); > > > > Something happened to the indentation. > > Ditto for several places in the code (upper and lower from this). > > What is the matter with the indention here? I'm doing `checkpatch.pl > --strict --codespell` on that and don't get an issue? Would you expect > cases like the FIELD_GET() calls on the next line, linked by a binary > OR, to be indented by yet another TAB? All 'F':s should be on the same column (since the email already mangled [not by me], here is just an example). en = FIELD_GET(ADXL345_ACT_X_EN, axis_ctrl) | FIELD_GET(ADXL345_ACT_Y_EN, axis_ctrl) | FIELD_GET(ADXL345_ACT_Z_EN, axis_ctrl); > > > + break; > > > + default: > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > + } > > > + > > > + if (!en) > > > + return en; > > > + > > > + /* Check if corresponding interrupts are enabled */ > > > + ret = regmap_read(st->regmap, ADXL345_REG_INT_ENABLE, ®val); > > > + if (ret) > > > + return ret; > > > + > > > + return adxl345_act_int_reg[type] & regval; > > > +} ... Really, cut the unrelated context in the replies! -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko