Em Fri, 5 Oct 2018 13:08:25 +0300 Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> escreveu: > > > This is still over 80 here. I think we could think of abbreviating what's > > > in the function name, not limiting to the endpoint. I think I'd prefer to > > > leave that for 4.21 as there's not much time anymore. > > > > Yes, I know. Renaming the function is the only way to get rid of > > those remaining warnings. If you're ok with renaming, IMHO it is best > > do do it right now, as we are already churning a lot of fwnode-related > > code, avoiding the need of touching it again for 4.21. > > This will presumably continue in v4.21 (or later). As noted in the cover > page of the fwnode patchset: > > This patchset does not address remaining issues such as supporting > setting defaults for e.g. bridge drivers with multiple ports, but > with Steve Longerbeam's patchset we're much closer to that goal. OK! Feel free to rename them when you feel ready. My suggestion is to do it at the end of a media merging cycle, as makes easier to avoid conflicts. I don't care that much about 80 cols. Yet, here it makes a point: we should be more spartan when naming functions :-) Thanks, Mauro
