Missatge de Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torok...@gmail.com> del dia dc., 4
de jul. 2018 a les 17:10:
>
> Hi Enric,
>
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 11:06:33AM +0200, Enric Balletbo Serra wrote:
> > Hi Matti,
> >
> > Thanks for the patch, a few comments below, some are feedback I
> > received when I sent some patches to this subsystem.
> >
> > Missatge de Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaitti...@fi.rohmeurope.com> del
> > dia dt., 19 de juny 2018 a les 12:57:
> > > +};
> > > +
> > > +/* bd71837 multi function cells */
> > > +static struct mfd_cell bd71837_mfd_cells[] = {
> > > + {
> > > + .name = "bd71837-clk",
> > > + }, {
> > > + .name = "bd718xx-pwrkey",
> > > + .resources = &irqs[0],
> > > + .num_resources = ARRAY_SIZE(irqs),
> > > + }, {
> > > + .name = "bd71837-pmic",
> > > + },
> > nit: no comma at the end
>
> Actually, trailing comma is preferred on structures/arrays without
> sentinels, because if one needs to add a new entry/new member, then in
> the diff there will have only one new line added, instead of one line
> being changed (adding now necessary comma) and one added.
>
Many thanks for sharing your knowledge! That looks to me a good
reason. I did this comment because at some point I received this
comment. I try to mark this kind of things as nitpicks because
sometimes there are differences between maintainers. E.g: some
maintainers prefer 'if (something == NULL)', others 'if (!something)';
others are fine using goto even there is nothing to unwind, other
prefer plain returns, etc.
Matti, I don't want to beat about the bush with these nitpicks. It is
not my intention. So I'd say, do what the maintainer wants :)
Dmitry, I really appreciate this kind of comments, especially when
there is a justification, so I can learn more and more to do better
patches.
Thanks,
Enric
> Thanks.
>
> --
> Dmitry
