On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 08:13:51PM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote: > On Wednesday 19 of June 2013 03:06:31 Kukjin Kim wrote: > > On 06/19/13 02:59, Tomasz Figa wrote: > > > Hi Thierry, > > > > [...] > > > > >>> +static void pwm_samsung_set_divisor(struct samsung_pwm_chip *pwm, > > >>> + unsigned int channel, u8 divisor) > > >> > > >> Nit: please align arguments on subsequent lines with the first > > >> argument > > >> of the first line. There's many more of these but I haven't mentioned > > >> them all explicitly. > > > > > > Hmm, I'm addressing all your comments that aren't addressed yet in v2 > > > at the moment and I'm wondering if this is really the correct way of > > > breaking function headers... > > > > static void pwm_samsung_set_divisor(struct samsung_pwm_chip *pwm, > > unsigned int channel, u8 divisor) > > > > > > I also would preferred to use above style :) > > Personally I find it looking better as well, but this is about being > compliant with kernel coding style guidelines (which also says that > indentation should be done using tabs). Please correct my understanding of > the quote below if it is incorrect. "placed substantially to the right" doesn't imply right-aligned. My understanding is that it should be indented enough to make it stand apart. I don't recall ever seeing right-aligned code. And regarding tabs, you should be indenting using tabs as far as possible and use spaces for the final alignment, so: static void pwm_samsung_set_divisor(struct samsung_pwm_chip *pwm, unsigned int channel, u8 divisor) In case your emailer doesn't highlight it, that's four tabs and four spaces. Thierry
Attachment:
pgpsYvnp8W3J0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
