[PATCH 08/15] pwm: Add new pwm-samsung driver

[Thierry Reding]

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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20130618/274c58b2/attachment-0001.sig>