Hi! > >>>+#include <linux/kernel.h> > >>>+#include <linux/module.h> > >>>+#include <linux/spmi.h> > >>>+#include <linux/of_device.h> > >>>+#include <linux/device.h> > >>>+#include <linux/types.h> > >>>+#include <linux/string.h> > >>>+#include <linux/mutex.h> > >>>+#include <linux/sysfs.h> > >>>+#include <linux/led-class-flash.h> > >>>+#include <linux/regulator/consumer.h> > >>>+#include <linux/delay.h> > >>>+#include <linux/regmap.h> > >>>+#include <dt-bindings/leds/leds-qcom-spmi-flash.h> > >> > >>Please sort includes alphabetically. > > > >No need to do that. > > Keeping the includes sorted eliminates the risk of introducing duplicates > and allows for faster lookup. > > What gain is in having them unsorted? It is not there is gain in them unsorted; it is that keeping sorted order is not worth the effort. > >>>+#define FLASH_SAFETY_TIMER 0x40 > >> > >>Namespacing prefix is needed for macros, e.g. QCOM_FLASH*. > > > >No need for that in .c files. > > In general it eliminates the risk of name clash with other subsystems > headers. > > And actually the prefix here should be QCOM_LED_FLASH to avoid ambiguity > with flash memory. If you dropped the vendor prefix then you'd get > possible name clash with led-class-flash.h namespace prefix. I believe the cost (longer macro names) outweights the benefits here. Best regards, Pavel -- http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
