Hi Sakari, On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 12:24:41PM +0300, Sakari Ailus wrote: > On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 11:20:05AM +0200, 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 for the patch. > > Aren't these all common and/or preferred practices outside the media tree > as well? I suppose not each one of these is universally enforced though. They're not I'm afraid :-) Different subsystems have different preferences, and within the realm of what a subsystem allows, different parts also use different coding style rules. It's the same for media, depending on who maintains a set of drivers, the rules will be different. > The coding style guide is lacking documentation on such things though. Trying to fix that with a top-down approach will in my opinion not work. I'd rather focus on media first to see if we can do something at the subsystem level, in a bottom-up way (I've even considered writing rules specific to sensor drivers, but if we can reach an agreement at the subsystem level, that would be better). > > --- > > .../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; > > + - hexadecimal values should be spelled using lowercase letters; > > + - one structure/enum member declaration per line; > > + - one variable declaration per line; > > + - prefer variable declaration order in reverse-x-mas-tree over > > + initialization at variable declare time; > > + > > + 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 wouldn't say this is required or even preferred if you have a dependency > between the variables. > > Rather I'd say the latter is undesirable if a_very_long_operation_name() > can fail. But that's a bit out of scope now. > > > + > > Key Cycle Dates > > --------------- -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart
