Re: [v4 3/9] platform/x86: asus-armoury: move existing tunings to asus-armoury module

[Julia Lawall]

On Fri, 27 Sep 2024, Luke Jones wrote:

> On Fri, 27 Sep 2024, at 7:24 PM, Markus Elfring wrote:
> >>> How much would you like to care for standard compliance concerns
> >>> together with your software developments?
> >>
> >> I only ask about because it seems to deviate from everything else I've viewed. For example the older `asus-wmi.h` has:
> >>
> >> #ifndef _ASUS_WMI_H_
> >> #define _ASUS_WMI_H_
> >
> > Such a naming approach is “popular”, isn't it?
> >
> >
> >> and every other header in the drivers/platform/x86 dir is similar. If what I'm supposed to is omit the leading `_` then sure I'll do it, it's not of any consequence to me.
> >
> > I dare to propose possibilities to take safer identifier selections
> > better into account.
> > I hope that we can benefit more from corresponding collateral evolution.
>
> My sincerest apologies if I missed something in my tone when trying to convey might thoughts - for some things I am still learning in regards to C (I am mostly rust) and the difference was a curious thing to me.
>
> The code is now updated to match your suggestion.

Markus is not an authority on Linux kernel codeing style, rather a
collector of random suggestions about C code that he would like to impose
on the Linux kernel.  So if you consider that his suggestion is not
appropriate in a Linux kernel context, please disregard it.

julia

>
> > Regards,
> > Markus
>
>