[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4656BEB6164FC34F8171C6538F1A595B2E9918D4@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 01:07:31 +0000
From: "Chen, Alvin" <alvin.chen@...el.com>
To: "'linus.walleij@...aro.org'" <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
CC: "'linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org'" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"'robh+dt@...nel.org'" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
"Kweh, Hock Leong" <hock.leong.kweh@...el.com>,
"'devicetree@...r.kernel.org'" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"Ong, Boon Leong" <boon.leong.ong@...el.com>,
"'gnurou@...il.com'" <gnurou@...il.com>,
"'linus.walleij@...aro.org'" <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
"'linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org'" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
"'sebastian@...akpoint.cc'" <sebastian@...akpoint.cc>,
"'grant.likely@...aro.org'" <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
"Westerberg, Mika" <mika.westerberg@...el.com>,
"'dvhart@...ux.intel.com'" <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>,
"'arnd@...db.de'" <arnd@...db.de>,
'atull' <atull@...nsource.altera.com>,
"Shevchenko, Andriy" <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/4 v3] GPIO: gpio-dwapb: Enable platform driver binding
to MFD driver
>
> > >
> > > > > static int dwapb_gpio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) {
> > > > > + int i;
> > > > > struct resource *res;
> > > > > struct dwapb_gpio *gpio;
> > > > > - struct device_node *np;
> > > > > int err;
> > > > > - unsigned int offs = 0;
> > > > > + struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> > > > > + struct dwapb_platform_data *pdata = dev_get_platdata(dev);
> > > > > + bool is_pdata_alloc = !pdata;
> > > >
> > > > Please combine the int's in one line (int err, i;) and put them as
> > > > the last one on this list. It looks the same to the compiler of
> > > > course, but more uniform for human eyes :)
> > >
> > > Do you think it's a good idea? In this case I, for example, would
> > > like to see int err as a separate line at the end of definition
> > > block. It would be better to distinguish counters and return code storage.
> > > Moreover, often counters would be unsigned int.
> >
> > If they are both 'int' they should be combined. If 'i' is changed to
> > be an unsigned int they would be separate.
>
> Linus, do you have any idea about it? I think it is not a big issue.
> >
Since no further feedbacks, I decide to use 'unsigned int i' to align the two feedbacks, since 'i' is just a counter.
And will send a new version with just this changes later.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists