[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Za0glbPfzeTjdZjn@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2024 15:48:05 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@...hat.com>
Cc: dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jingoo Han <jingoohan1@...il.com>,
Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>,
Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>, Helge Deller <deller@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/4] backlight: hx8357: Make use of device properties
On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 09:20:46AM +0100, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> writes:
..
> > +typedef int (*hx8357_init)(struct lcd_device *);
>
> This kind of typedef usage is frowned upon in the Linux coding style [0]
> (per my understanding at least) and indeed in my opinion it makes harder
> to grep.
>
> [0] https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
Thanks for pointing this out. However, this piece does _not_ clarify typedef:s
for function pointers which I personally find a good to have.
..
> > - ret = ((int (*)(struct lcd_device *))match->data)(lcdev);
>
> This is what I mean, before it was clear what was stored in match->data.
> But after you changes, what is returned by the device_get_match_data()
> function is opaque and you need to look at the typedef hx8357_init to
> figure that out.
The above is so ugly in my opinion, that justifies using typedef:s even
if you are quite skeptical about them.
..
> No strong opinion though and I see other drivers doing the same (but no
> other driver in drivers/video/backlight).
>
> Reviewed-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@...hat.com>
Thank you for the review!
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists