Messages in this thread | | | From | "Philip, Avinash" <> | Subject | RE: [PATCH 02/11] gpio: davinci: coding style correction | Date | Thu, 23 May 2013 06:27:09 +0000 |
| |
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 20:10:42, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 12:40:25PM +0530, Philip Avinash wrote: > > /* > > * Assuming the pin is muxed as a gpio output, set its output value. > > */ > > -static void > > -davinci_gpio_set(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned offset, int value) > > +static void davinci_gpio_set(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned offset, > > + int value) > > This kind of stuff is just churn. If you read Documentation/CodingStyle: > > Statements longer than 80 columns will be broken into sensible chunks, unless > exceeding 80 columns significantly increases readability and does not hide > information. Descendants are always substantially shorter than the parent and > are placed substantially to the right. The same applies to function headers > with a long argument list. However, never break user-visible strings such as > printk messages, because that breaks the ability to grep for them. > > "broken into sensible chunks". Here's the question: is the former a > sensible format? Arguably it is because it results in all the arguments > fitting on one line at the expense of missing the return value. > > The latter is also a sensible format - but breaks the arguments instead > of the return value. > > Both formats can be found in their entirety by grep by function name alone: > > grep -1 davinci_gpio_set > > or if you prefer to type some more then you end up with more specific > > grep -A1 davinci_gpio_set > or > grep -B1 davinci_gpio_set > > depending on the version. > > Where there's no clear advantage one way or the other, let the authors > preference stand.
Ok I understood and I will remove these changes in next version.
Thanks Avinash
>
| |