On 13/10/2021 11:20, Jacopo Mondi wrote: > There are a few additional coding style conventions in place in > the media subsystem. If they do not get documented, it's hard to enforce > them during review as well as it is hard for developers to follow them > without having previously contributed to the subsystem. > > Add them to the subsystem profile documentation. > > Signed-off-by: Jacopo Mondi <jacopo@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > > All points are up for discussion ofc. > > But the idea is to get to have more requirement defined, as otherwise > it's very hard to enforce them during review. > > Thanks > j > > --- > .../media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst | 24 +++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst b/Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst > index eb1cdfd280ba..9c376f843e1c 100644 > --- a/Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst > +++ b/Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst > @@ -180,6 +180,30 @@ In particular, we accept lines with more than 80 columns: > - when they avoid a line to end with an open parenthesis or an open > bracket. > > +There are a few additional requirements which are not enforced by tooling > +but mostly during the review process: > + > + - C++ style comments are not allowed, if not for SPDX headers; if not -> except > + - hexadecimal values should be spelled using lowercase letters; > + - one structure/enum member declaration per line; > + - one variable declaration per line; Hmm, I don't mind something like: int i, j; But for anything more complex I too prefer one declaration per line. > + - prefer variable declaration order in reverse-x-mas-tree over > + initialization at variable declare time; Add something like: ...unless there are dependencies or other readability reasons to depart from this. > + > + As an example, the following style is preferred:: > + > + struct priv_struct *priv = container_of(....) > + struct foo_struct *foo = priv->foo; > + int b; > + > + b = a_very_long_operation_name(foo, s->bar) > + > + over the following one:: > + > + struct priv_struct *priv = container_of(....) > + struct foo_struct *foo = priv->foo; > + int b = a_very_long_operation_name(foo, s->bar) I'm not sure if this is what you typically see. Perhaps this is a better example: int i; struct foo_struct *foo = priv->foo; int result; should be written as: struct foo_struct *foo = priv->foo; int result; int i; Regards, Hans > + > Key Cycle Dates > --------------- > > -- > 2.33.0 >
