Re: [PATCH v3 7/8] mikrobus: Add mikrobus driver

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 19/03/2024 07:59, Ayush Singh wrote:
> On 3/19/24 11:02, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> 
>> On 16/03/2024 14:06, Ayush Singh wrote:
>>>   > Are you sure this fits in Linux coding style limit (not checkpatch
>>> limit, but the limit expressed by Linux coding style)?
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, I am just using clang-format with column width of 100 instead of
>>> 80. The docs now say 80 is prefered rather than mandatory, so well I was
>> So you introduce your own style? Then consider it mandatory...
>>
>>> using 100 since I prefer that. If 80 is necessary or would make review
>>> easier than I can just switch to it.
>> You do not choose your own coding style.
>>
>>>
>>> I will remove serdev, pwm, clickID and send a new patch with the minimal
>>> driver and better commit messages as suggested with Vaishnav. It is
>>> important to have good support for mikroBUS boards without clickID as well.
>> Best regards,
>> Krzysztof
>>
> 
> I mean after the whole discussion about 80 vs 100 column line limit a 

Yeah, and the discussion was saying: use 80, unless code readability is
improved by using 100-limit.

> few years ago, and change in checkpatch behavior, I thought 100 was an 
> acceptable column length in the kernel, but I guess was mistaken, and 80 
> character is still mandatory? Not sure why there was a change in 
> checkpatch and docs though.

You mistake checkpatch with coding style. What checkpatch tells you, is
a suggestion. It's not the coding style. The problem with checkpatch is
that people do not understand "why" it proposes something and they
implement its warnings literally, thus sometimes decreasing code
readability.

> 
> Regardless, I have switched 80 in the next patch since it is mandatory, 
> and I do not care as long as I can format using a formatter.

Please use wrapping as explained in coding style and deviate to 100
character limit only if it increases the readability.

Best regards,
Krzysztof