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!
