Re: [PATCH v3 6/9] irqchip: Add the ingenic-tcu-intc driver

[Marc Zyngier]

On 22/01/18 09:26, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Jan 2018, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 17:25:45 +0100
>> Paul Cercueil <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Marc,
>>>
>>>>>  +static int __init ingenic_tcu_intc_of_init(struct device_node 
>>>>> *node,
>>>>>  +	struct device_node *parent)
>>>>>  +{
>>>>>  +	struct irq_domain *domain;
>>>>>  +	struct irq_chip_generic *gc;
>>>>>  +	struct irq_chip_type *ct;
>>>>>  +	int err, i, num_parent_irqs;
>>>>>  +	unsigned int parent_irqs[3];  
>>>>
>>>> 3 parent interrupts? Really? How do you pick one? Also, given the 
>>>> useage
>>>> model below, "int" is the wrong type. Probably should be u32.  
>>>
>>> See below.
>>>
>>>>>  +	struct regmap *map;
>>>>>  +
>>>>>  +	num_parent_irqs = of_property_count_elems_of_size(
>>>>>  +			node, "interrupts", 4);  
>>>>
>>>> Nit: on a single line, as here is nothing that hurts my eyes more than
>>>> reading something like(
>>>> this). Also, 4 is better expressed as sizeof(u32).  
>>>
>>> That will make checkpatch.pl unhappy :(
>>
>> And I don't care about checkpatch. I maintain the irqchip stuff, while
>> checkpatch doesn't. Hence, I win.
> 
> 	num_parent_irqs =
> 		of_property_count_elems_of_size(node, "interrupts", 4);  
> 
> Everybody wins!

<old_git_rant>

As I said before, I've stopped using a physical DEC VT100 around 1990,
and gained the ability to extend my terminal to a bit more that 80
columns. And even the VT100 could be coerced into using a 132 column mode...

</old_git_rant>

Adhering to a convention can be good, but common sense must apply first.
Splitting an assignment is visually annoying and in that case, it
doesn't make much sense. I'll happily take a line that goes beyond 80
cols, and if you really wanted to stay within boundaries, how about
turning "num_parent_irqs" something shorter?

Thanks,

	M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...