Re: [PATCH 13/15] gpio: sodaville: use new generic GPIO chip API

[Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@intel.com>]

On Tue, Sep 09, 2025 at 01:35:04PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 9, 2025 at 1:31 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@intel.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 09, 2025 at 11:15:40AM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:

...

> > > +     config = (typeof(config)){
> >
> > This looks unusual. Why can't properly formed compound literal be used as in
> > many other places in the kernel?
> 
> It is correct C

If it compiles, it doesn't mean it's correct C, it might be non-standard.
Have you checked with the standard (note, I read that part in the past,
but I may forgot the details, so I don't know the answer to this)?

> and checkpatch doesn't raise any warnings.

checkpatch is far from being useful in the questions like this.
It false positively complains for for_each*() macros all over
the kernel, for example.

> It's the
> same kind of argument as between kmalloc(sizeof(struct foo)) vs
> kmalloc(sizeof(f)).

Maybe, but it introduces a new style while all other cases use the other,
_established_ style. So we have a precedent and the form the code is written
in is against the de facto usage of the compound literals.

> I guess it's personal taste but I like this version better.

In kernel we also try to be consistent. This add inconsistency. Am I wrong?

> > > +             .dev = &pdev->dev,
> > > +             .sz = 4,
> > > +             .dat = sd->gpio_pub_base + GPINR,
> > > +             .set = sd->gpio_pub_base + GPOUTR,
> > > +             .dirout = sd->gpio_pub_base + GPOER,
> > > +     };

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko