On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 02:27:47PM +0300, Sakari Ailus wrote: > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 02:20:06PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 02:13:16PM +0300, Sakari Ailus wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 12:44:36PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 05:27:33PM +0800, Bingbu Cao wrote: > > > > > On 8/15/20 12:30 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > > > We may use special helper macro to poll IO till condition or timeout occurs. > > > > > > > > > > + ret = readl_poll_timeout(dma, value, value & CIO2_CDMAC0_DMA_HALTED, 4000, 2000000); > > > > > > > > > > This line is too long, need a break, others look good for me. > > > > > > > > checkpatch doesn't complain, but if you insist, I'll split it in v2. > > > > > > The coding style hasn't changed, it's just the checkpatch.pl warning that > > > has. > > > > Joe, it seems we have inconsistency now between checkpatch and coding style. > > Shouldn't we revert 100 limit warning to 80? > > There are sometimes genuine reasons for having longer lines than 80, and > depending on the code, that happens more often in some places than > elsewhere. This tended to generate lots of checkpatch.pl warnings in the > past. > > While I didn't see the patch removing the 80 chars per line limit until it > made the news, I think it was a quite reasonable compromise. But doesn't it make harder life for reviewers like you? You have to keep in mind all these inconsistencies and rule either way. That said, we either would fix the doc, or revert the checkpatch change. Jonathan, what is your opinion? -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
