Hi Sebastian,
...
> >> static const struct intel_gt_debugfs_file files[] = {
> >> - { "drpc", &drpc_fops, NULL },
> >> - { "frequency", &frequency_fops, NULL },
> >> - { "forcewake", &fw_domains_fops, NULL },
> >> - { "forcewake_user", &forcewake_user_fops, NULL},
> >> - { "llc", &llc_fops, llc_eval },
> >> - { "rps_boost", &rps_boost_fops, rps_eval },
> >> - { "perf_limit_reasons", &perf_limit_reasons_fops,
> >> perf_limit_reasons_eval },
> >> + { .name = "drpc", .fops = &drpc_fops },
> >> + { .name = "frequency", .fops = &frequency_fops },
> >> + { .name = "forcewake", .fops = &fw_domains_fops },
> >> + { .name = "forcewake_user", .fops = &forcewake_user_fops},
> >> + { .name = "llc", .fops = &llc_fops, .eval = llc_eval },
> >> + { .name = "rps_boost", .fops = &rps_boost_fops, .eval =
> >> rps_eval },
> >> + { .name = "perf_limit_reasons", .fops =
> >> &perf_limit_reasons_fops,
> >> + .eval = perf_limit_reasons_eval },
> >
> > For consistency, keep it in the same line, even if it goes over
> > 80 (or 100 (remembmer that 100 is accepted)).
>
> ```
> - .eval = perf_limit_reasons_eval },
> + { .name = "perf_limit_reasons", .fops =
> &perf_limit_reasons_fops, .eval = perf_limit_reasons_eval },
> };
>
...
> WARNING: line length of 116 exceeds 100 columns
> #21: FILE: drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_pm_debugfs.c:597:
> + { .name = "perf_limit_reasons", .fops =
> &perf_limit_reasons_fops, .eval = perf_limit_reasons_eval },
>
> total: 0 errors, 2 warnings, 9 lines checked
> ```
>
> In this case its is 116.
Checkpatch is not the holy a law. Please remember that checkpatch
is more a recommendation and in some cases it's OK to ignore its
warnings/errors. In this case, in my view, it's more readable in
one line.
But I see you already sent the v3, so no worries, this is not a
binding comment. It also depends on your preference.
Andi
