On Wed, 2017-08-09 at 15:20 +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Tue, 08 Aug 2017, Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > +static uint32_t intel_ddi_dp_level(struct intel_dp *intel_dp) > > Sorry to pick on specifically this patch when there continue to be > offenders all over the place... don't be sorry. I'm glad that you spotted this ;) I'm always confused about this and try to get the closest one, although I prefer the linux style u32. > but shouldn't we prefer the kernel types > over standard C types? Not that checkpatch is an authority here, but > with --strict it complains about using e.g. uint32_t. I went to https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v4.10/process/coding-style.html """ d. New types which are identical to standard C99 types, in certain exceptional circumstances. Although it would only take a short amount of time for the eyes and brain to become accustomed to the standard types like uint32_t, some people object to their use anyway. Therefore, the Linux-specific u8/u16/u32/u64 types and their signed equivalents which are identical to standard types are permitted – although they are not mandatory in new code of your own. When editing existing code which already uses one or the other set of types, you should conform to the existing choices in that code. """ I wonder if we should do a one time replace in all our code and start accepting only one to avoid confusion. > > BR, > Jani. > > _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
