Re: [PATCH v7 1/4] mfd: bd71837: mfd driver for ROHM BD71837 PMIC

[Enric Balletbo Serra]

Hi Matti,

Missatge de Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> del
dia dt., 26 de juny 2018 a les 14:03:
>
> Hello Again Eric,
>
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 01:40:40PM +0200, Enric Balletbo Serra wrote:
> > Hi Matti,
> > Missatge de Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> del
> > dia dt., 26 de juny 2018 a les 13:25:
> > > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 11:06:33AM +0200, Enric Balletbo Serra wrote:
> > > > Missatge de Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> del
> > > > dia dt., 19 de juny 2018 a les 12:57:
> > >
> > > > > +static const struct of_device_id bd71837_of_match[] = {
> > > > > +       { .compatible = "rohm,bd71837", .data = (void *)0},
> > > > > +       { },
> > > >
> > > > nit: { /* sentinel */ }
> > >
> > > I am sorry but I didn't quite get the point here. Could you please
> > > explain what did you expect to be added here?
> > >
> >
> > It's a nit but It is a good practice to specify that the last entry is
> > a sentinel. Just this.
> >
> > +static const struct of_device_id bd71837_of_match[] = {
> > +       { .compatible = "rohm,bd71837", .data = (void *)0},
> > +       { /* sentinel */ }
> > +};
>
> Oh, I see. Finally something I can disagree =) I quickly opened few
> random drivers which declare match table. None of them practiced this
> good practice. So I guess it is not such a standard after all. And I
> guess the meaning of last entry in match table should be quite obvious.
> Adding the comment /* sentinel */ sounds like stating the obvious at
> best - at worst it gets one just to wonder what the "sentinel" means =)
>

git grep "/\* sentinel \*/"

Anyway, I marked this change as a nit, so you don't need to change. I
just commented because at some point I received a "complain" when I
didn't add it. But this is up to the maintainer and I am not sure if
the "complain" was received in this subsystem :)

Cheers,
 Enric

> >
> > And just noticed, is .data = (void *)0 really required?
>
> As static structs should be initialized to zero I'd say it is not
> required. Will remove this. Thanks for pointing this out.
>
> Br,
>         Matti Vaittinen
>