Re: [PATCH v2] mfd: MAX6650/6651 support

[Laszlo Papp]

On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 3:20 PM, Sachin Kamat <sachin.kamat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 10 February 2014 17:51, Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> > +#include <linux/device.h>
>>> > +#include <linux/mfd/core.h>
>>> > +#include <linux/module.h>
>>> > +#include <linux/i2c.h>
>>>
>>> Please arrange these alphabetically.
>>
>> Why?
>
> 1. It makes it easier to avoid adding duplicate includes.
> 2. Code looks more ordered/organized.
> 3. Prevents further clean up patches arranging them so :)

1) I am sorry, but I need to disagree with this one, personally. Check
duplicates could be done by a util at any given moment if it becomes a
pressing issue.

2) Not for me. I prefer hierarchical dependency based inclusion
between headers if there is such a thing, or just orthogonal if not.

3) It does not apply to my taste due to 1-2).

I would also like to add further detriments:

4) file rename could rearrange the list with your suggestion.

5) It would be inconsistent with a large code base out there.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/