From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Damien Lespiau Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] drm/i915: Change Mipi register definitions Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2014 12:11:11 +0100 Message-ID: <20140602111111.GA17233@strange.amr.corp.intel.com> References: <20140530151048.GE15914@strange.amr.corp.intel.com> <1401523363-5566-1-git-send-email-shashank.sharma@intel.com> <20140531094910.GA22848@strange.config> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 416406E541 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2014 04:11:14 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "Intel-gfx" To: "Sharma, Shashank" Cc: "intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org" , "Vetter, Daniel" List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 06:41:54AM +0100, Sharma, Shashank wrote: > Hi Damien, > Please correct me if I am missing something, but the only reason we > are seeing those extra formatting changes is, almost all of the old > MIPI register definitions were beyond 80 char, and was checked in like > that with warnings (How ?) So when I was checking for checkpatch > errors, I saw that, and I tried to fix that in the previous patch. You're absolutely correct. However that 80 chars limit is a soft one and I think, in that case, being able to review the patch wins. Would someone think it's a good idea to have those definitions under 80 chars, one could always send a patch *just* changing that. I wouln't bother. -- Damien