Re: [PATCH v3 08/14] iio: bmg160_core: Simplify using devm_regulator_*get_enable()

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Sat, Aug 20, 2022 at 9:19 AM Vaittinen, Matti
<Matti.Vaittinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 8/20/22 02:30, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 10:21 PM Matti Vaittinen
> > <mazziesaccount@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

...

> >>          struct bmg160_data *data;
> >>          struct iio_dev *indio_dev;
> >>          int ret;
> >> +       static const char * const regulators[] = {"vdd", "vddio"};
> >
> > Please, keep this following the "longest line first" rule. Note, in
>
> This was not following the (IMO slightly silly) rule even prior my
> patch. I can for sure move my line up - but that won't give you the
> "reverse X-mas tree".

What do you mean by this? In the above case the rule does exactly give
you "reversed xmas tree order". What did I miss?

> I don't have any real objections on changing the styling though - I
> don't expect this to be merged before the dependency is in rc1 - so I
> guess I will anyways need to respin this for next cycle. I can do the
> styling then.

Fine with me.

> > this case you even can move it out of the function, so we will see
> > clearly that this is (not a hidden) global variable.
>
> Here I do disagree with you. Moving the array out of the function makes
> it _much_ less obvious it is not used outside this function. Reason for
> making is "static const" is to allow the data be placed in read-only
> area (thanks to Guenter who originally gave me this tip).

"static" in C language means two things (that's what come to my mind):
- for functions this tells that a function is not used outside of the module;
- for variables that it is a _global_ variable.

Hiding static inside functions is not a good coding practice since it
hides scope of the variable. And if you look into the kernel code, I
believe the use you are proposing is in minority.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko