On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 05:58:49PM +0100, Benjamin Stürz wrote:
> This replaces comments with C99's designated
> initializers because the kernel supports them now.
I'm a bit puzzled by "because the kernel supports them now". Designated
initializers are not purely a C99 feature... it is also a GNU C extension
to C89. This language feature has been used by the kernel for a very long time
(well over a decade).
On other words it would be much more effective to advocate for the
change by saying "because the code is clearer and easier to read" rather
than "because we can".
> Signed-off-by: Benjamin Stürz <benni@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/arm/mach-s3c/bast-irq.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++----------------
> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-s3c/bast-irq.c b/arch/arm/mach-s3c/bast-irq.c
> index d299f124e6dc..bd5471f9973b 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-s3c/bast-irq.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-s3c/bast-irq.c
> @@ -29,22 +29,22 @@
> * the irq is not implemented
> */
> static const unsigned char bast_pc104_irqmasks[] = {
> - 0, /* 0 */
> - 0, /* 1 */
> - 0, /* 2 */
> - 1, /* 3 */
> - 0, /* 4 */
> - 2, /* 5 */
> - 0, /* 6 */
> - 4, /* 7 */
> - 0, /* 8 */
> - 0, /* 9 */
> - 8, /* 10 */
> - 0, /* 11 */
> - 0, /* 12 */
> - 0, /* 13 */
> - 0, /* 14 */
> - 0, /* 15 */
> + [0] = 0,
> + [1] = 0,
> + [2] = 0,
> + [3] = 1,
> + [4] = 0,
> + [5] = 2,
> + [6] = 0,
> + [7] = 4,
> + [8] = 0,
> + [9] = 0,
> + [10] = 8,
> + [11] = 0,
> + [12] = 0,
> + [13] = 0,
> + [14] = 0,
> + [15] = 0,
Shouldn't this just be as follows (in order to match bast_pc104_irqs)?
+static const unsigned char bast_pc104_irqmasks[16] = {
+ [3] = 1,
+ [5] = 2,
+ [7] = 4,
+ [10] = 8,
};
static const unsigned char bast_pc104_irqs[] = { 3, 5, 7, 10 };
Daniel.
