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?
Best regards,
Krzysztof
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
