On 20 June 2017 at 11:02, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 19 June 2017 at 17:31, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Although header is included only once but still having an include guard
>>> is a good practice. To avoid confusion, add SoC prefix to existing
>>> Exynos5433 header include guard.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> include/video/exynos5433_decon.h | 6 +++---
>>> include/video/exynos7_decon.h | 5 +++++
>>> 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/include/video/exynos5433_decon.h b/include/video/exynos5433_decon.h
>>> index 78957c9626f5..b30362da5692 100644
>>> --- a/include/video/exynos5433_decon.h
>>> +++ b/include/video/exynos5433_decon.h
>>> @@ -6,8 +6,8 @@
>>> * published by the Free Software Foundationr
>>> */
>>>
>>> -#ifndef EXYNOS_REGS_DECON_H
>>> -#define EXYNOS_REGS_DECON_H
>>> +#ifndef EXYNOS5433_REGS_DECON_H
>>> +#define EXYNOS5433_REGS_DECON_H
>>>
>> Drop the _REGS_ part from the guard on each header? The file name/path
>> does not have it, plus it'll save some WTF moments when
>> exynos{5433,7}_regs_decon.h comes about.
>
> So maybe it makes sense to reorder these patches and use the guard
> name matching final file name?
>
That sounds better, IMHO.
-Emil
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
