Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5] Driver for ON Semi AR0521 camera sensor | From | Randy Dunlap <> | Date | Sat, 9 Oct 2021 13:18:50 -0700 |
| |
On 10/9/21 2:07 AM, Jacopo Mondi wrote: > Hi Krzysztof, > > I've been testing this driver in the last few days, thanks for your > effort in upstreaming it! > > I'll separately comment on what I had to change to have it working for > my use case, but let me continue the discussion from where it was left > pending here to add my 2 cents. > > On Thu, Oct 07, 2021 at 11:11:09AM +0200, Krzysztof Hałasa wrote: >> Hi Sakari, >> >> Thanks for your input. >> >>> Where's the corresponding DT binding patch? Ideally it would be part of the >>> same set. >> >> Well I've sent it a moment before this one. Will make them a set next >> time. >> >>>> +#define AR0521_WIDTH_BLANKING_MIN 572u >>>> +#define AR0521_HEIGHT_BLANKING_MIN 28u // must be even >>> >>> Please use /* */ for comments. The SPDX tag is an exception. >> >> As far as I know, this is no longer the case, the C99 comments are now >> permitted and maybe even encouraged. Or was I dreaming? >> >> checkpatch doesn't protest either. > > To my understanding the C99 standard added support for the // > commenting style and tollerate them, but they're still from C++ and I > see very few places where they're used in the kernel, and per as far I > know they're still not allowed by the coding style > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/coding-style.html#commenting
http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1607.1/00627.html
Maybe we should update coding-style then.
> > Looking at how you used comments in the driver I think you could get > rid of most // comments easily, the register tables might be an > exception but I would really try to remove them from there as well. > > >> >>> Please wrap your lines at 80 or earlier, unless a sound reason exists to do >>> otherwise. >> >> This limitation appears to be lifted as well, after all those years. >> Is there a specific reason to still use it here? Yes, lines longer than >> 80 chars make the code much more readable (for my eyes, at least). >> Yes, I know there is some "soft" limit, and I trim lines when it makes >> them better in my opinion. >> > > In my personal opinion lifting that restriction caused more pain than > anything, as different subsystem are now imposing different > requirements. Here everything has been so far pretty strict about > going over 80-cols, but I think there are situation where it makes > sense in example >
[snip]
> > My suggestion is: aim to 80 cols whenever possible, if it forces you > to do things like the above shown function declaration you can go a > little over that
Yes, 80 max is still preferred. Up to 100 may be tolerable in some cases.
> As reported here > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=bdc48fa11e46f867ea4d75fa59ee87a7f48be144 > if you go over 100 you should ask yourself what are you doing :)
-- ~Randy
| |