On Wed, Jul 04, 2018 at 06:57:39PM +0200, Enric Balletbo Serra wrote:
> Missatge de Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx> del dia dc., 4
> de jul. 2018 a les 17:10:
> >
> > Hi Enric,
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 11:06:33AM +0200, Enric Balletbo Serra wrote:
> > > Hi Matti,
> > >
> > > Thanks for the patch, a few comments below, some are feedback I
> > > received when I sent some patches to this subsystem.
> > >
> > > Missatge de Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> del
> > > dia dt., 19 de juny 2018 a les 12:57:
> > > > +};
> > > > +
> > > > +/* bd71837 multi function cells */
> > > > +static struct mfd_cell bd71837_mfd_cells[] = {
> > > > + {
> > > > + .name = "bd71837-clk",
> > > > + }, {
> > > > + .name = "bd718xx-pwrkey",
> > > > + .resources = &irqs[0],
> > > > + .num_resources = ARRAY_SIZE(irqs),
> > > > + }, {
> > > > + .name = "bd71837-pmic",
> > > > + },
> > > nit: no comma at the end
> >
> > Actually, trailing comma is preferred on structures/arrays without
> > sentinels, because if one needs to add a new entry/new member, then in
> > the diff there will have only one new line added, instead of one line
> > being changed (adding now necessary comma) and one added.
> >
>
> Many thanks for sharing your knowledge! That looks to me a good
> reason.
So in this specific ecample leaving the comma does not help. The opening
brace for new array element would be added to same line where the comma
is, right? In any case - this was educating and makes perfect sense for
arrays with simple items. Thanks.
> Matti, I don't want to beat about the bush with these nitpicks. It is
> not my intention. So I'd say, do what the maintainer wants :)
>
No problem.
Br,
Matti Vaittinen
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
