On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 04:00:40PM +0200, 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. This should probably go as the top-level, it's a valid comment for most (all ?) rules. > > + > > + 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; > > > + > > Key Cycle Dates > > --------------- > > -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart
