Re: [PATCH net-next v8 6/9] net: txgbe: Support GPIO to SFP socket

["Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 11:39:08AM +0200, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> On Tue, 2023-05-16 at 10:12 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 5:39 AM Jiawen Wu <jiawenwu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > ...
> > 
> > > > > +   struct gpio_irq_chip *girq;
> > > > > +   struct wx *wx = txgbe->wx;
> > > > > +   struct gpio_chip *gc;
> > > > > +   struct device *dev;
> > > > > +   int ret;
> > > > 
> > > > > +   dev = &wx->pdev->dev;
> > > > 
> > > > This can be united with the defintion above.
> > > > 
> > > >       struct device *dev = &wx->pdev->dev;
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > This is a question that I often run into, when I want to keep this order,
> > > i.e. lines longest to shortest, but the line of the pointer which get later
> > > is longer. For this example:
> > > 
> > >         struct wx *wx = txgbe->wx;
> > >         struct device *dev = &wx->pdev->dev;
> > 
> > So, we locate assignments according to the flow. I do not see an issue here.
> 
> That would break the reverse x-mass tree order.
> 
> > > should I split the line, or put the long line abruptly there?
> > 
> > The latter is fine.
> 
> This is minor, but I have to disagree. My understanding is that
> respecting the reversed x-mass tree is preferred. In case of dependent
> initialization as the above, the preferred style it the one used by
> this patch.

Meanwhile, I've been told something completely different, and therefore
I do something else, namely:


	struct device *dev;
	struct wx *wx;

	wx = txgbe->wx;
	dev = &wx->pdev->dev;

	...

I've been lead to believe that this is preferred in netdev to breaking
the reverse christmas-tree due to dependent initialisations.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!