On 21/10/2021 16:00, Hans Verkuil wrote: > 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; There is one other requirement: the patches must be run through scripts/checkpatch.pl --strict. Anything that --strict notifies you of and that is reasonable to fix (not everything can be fixed) should be fixed. Also (although perhaps out of scope for a coding style) before new V4L2 drivers or substantial enhancements to V4L2 drivers can be accepted, you must run 'v4l2-compliance -s' for the video device (or even better use -m if the driver creates a media device) and include the output with the cover letter of the patch series. Obviously, any failures should be fixed. Regards, Hans > > Regards, > > Hans > >> + >> Key Cycle Dates >> --------------- >> >> -- >> 2.33.0 >> >
