On Wed, 27 Dec 2023 18:37:42 +0200 Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 27, 2023 at 04:33:37PM +0200, Petre Rodan wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 26, 2023 at 04:49:22PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > ,,, > > > > > ret = devm_request_irq(dev, data->irq, mpr_eoc_handler, > > > > - IRQF_TRIGGER_RISING, client->name, data); > > > > + IRQF_TRIGGER_RISING, dev_name(dev), data); > > > > > > Even though you'll change it again here, would have been nice to have > > > the alignment fixed in the earlier patch then the code update here. > > > > I tried this, but due to the fact that the line has to be right-aligned to > > column 80 we will still see a whitespace difference due to the length diff of > > the name-related argument. > > You can split in the previous patch accordingly, so data comes to a new line. > > ... > > > > > +#include <linux/iio/iio.h> > > > > > > Why include this? Can't see an IIO specific stuff in here. > > > > tried to remove it and > > > > CC [M] mprls0025pa_i2c.o > > mprls0025pa.h:89:63: error: 'IIO_DMA_MINALIGN' undeclared here (not in a function); did you mean 'ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN'? > > 89 | u8 buffer[MPR_MEASUREMENT_RD_SIZE] __aligned(IIO_DMA_MINALIGN); > > > I guess it makes more sense to move it to the .h file, where buffer[] is defined. > > Yes, C-code and especially headers should follow IWYI principle. The real user > of that definition is _the header_ file, and not C in this case. Absolutely - it is clear why this should be included from the header file. Jonathan > >
