Em qui, 2021-04-15 às 18:14 +0100, Matthew Wilcox escreveu: > On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 02:08:19PM -0300, Aline Santana Cordeiro > wrote: > > -const struct atomisp_format_bridge > > *get_atomisp_format_bridge_from_mbus( > > - u32 mbus_code); > > +const struct atomisp_format_bridge* > > +get_atomisp_format_bridge_from_mbus(u32 mbus_code); > > No, this does not match coding style. Probably best to break the > 80-column guideline in this instance. Best would be to have a > function > and/or struct name that isn't so ridiculously long, but that would > require some in-depth thinking. > I left the type of function and its name with the parameters in different lines, following up some examples of other files, such as atomisp_acc.c. But I didn't pay attention and left the pointer with the function name instead of left it with the type of the function in v1, so Hans suggested it to a v2, as I did. What should I do in this case? Thank you in advance, Aline > > -void atomisp_apply_css_parameters( > > - struct atomisp_sub_device *asd, > > - struct atomisp_css_params *css_param); > > +void atomisp_apply_css_parameters(struct atomisp_sub_device *asd, > > + struct atomisp_css_params > > *css_param); > > + > > Good. >
