Hi Mauro,
On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 01:51:52PM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Em Fri, 2 Mar 2018 15:46:33 +0100
> Jacopo Mondi <jacopo+renesas@xxxxxxxxxx> escreveu:
>
> > Re-order variables declaration to respect 'reverse christmas tree'
> > ordering whenever possible.
>
> To be frank, I don't like the idea of reverse christmas tree ordering
> myself... Perhaps due to the time I used to program on assembler,
> where alignment issues could happen, I find a way more logic to order
> based on complexity and size of the argument...
>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jacopo Mondi <jacopo+renesas@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/media/i2c/tw9910.c | 23 +++++++++++------------
> > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/tw9910.c b/drivers/media/i2c/tw9910.c
> > index cc648de..3a5e307 100644
> > --- a/drivers/media/i2c/tw9910.c
> > +++ b/drivers/media/i2c/tw9910.c
> > @@ -406,9 +406,9 @@ static void tw9910_reset(struct i2c_client *client)
> >
> > static int tw9910_power(struct i2c_client *client, int enable)
> > {
> > - int ret;
> > u8 acntl1;
> > u8 acntl2;
> > + int ret;
>
> ... So, in this case, the order is already the right one, according
> with my own criteria :-)
>
> There was some discussion about the order sometime ago at LKML:
>
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9411999/
>
> As I'm not seeing the proposed patch there at checkpatch, nor any
> comments about xmas tree at coding style, I think that there were no
> agreements about the ordering.
>
> So, while there's no consensus about that, let's keep it as-is.
Thanks for explaining. I was sure it was part of the coding style
rules! My bad, feel free to ditch this patch (same for ov772x ofc).
Thanks
j
>
> Regards,
> Mauro
