From: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 06/15] pwm: define a new pwm_state struct
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 10:12:52 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150720121252.559d286a@bbrezillon> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150720100925.GX29614@ulmo>
On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 12:09:26 +0200
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 12:01:16PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 10:04:59 +0200
> > Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 10:21:52AM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > diff --git a/include/linux/pwm.h b/include/linux/pwm.h
> > > [...]
> > > > +struct pwm_state {
> > > > + unsigned int period; /* in nanoseconds */
> > > > + unsigned int duty_cycle; /* in nanoseconds */
> > > > + enum pwm_polarity polarity;
> > > > +};
> > >
> > > No need for the extra padding here.
> >
> > What do you mean by "extra padding" ?
> > I just reused the indentation used in the pwm_device struct.
>
> Yeah, I have a local patch to fix that up. I find it useless to pad
> things like this, and it has the downside that it will become totally
> inconsistent (or cause a lot of churn by reformatting) if ever you add a
> field that extends beyond the padding. Single spaces don't have any such
> drawbacks and, in my opinion, look just as good.
I prefer the single space approach too, so I won't complain ;-).
>
> > Would you prefer something like that ?
> >
> > struct pwm_state {
> > unsigned int period; /* in nanoseconds */
> > unsigned int duty_cycle; /* in nanoseconds */
> > enum pwm_polarity polarity;
> > };
>
> Yeah. I'd say even the comments would be more suited in a kerneldoc-
> style comment:
>
> /**
> * struct pwm_state - state of a PWM channel
> * @period: PWM period (in nanoseconds)
> * @duty_cycle: PWM duty cycle (in nanoseconds)
> * @polarity: PWM polarity
> */
> struct pwm_state {
> unsigned int period;
> unsigned int duty_cycle;
> enum pwm_polarity polarity;
> };
>
> This is something that users will need to deal with, so eventually
> somebody might look at this via some DocBook generated HTML or PDF.
I agree.
--
Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-07-20 10:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 68+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-07-01 8:21 [RFC PATCH 00/15] pwm: add support for atomic update Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` [RFC PATCH 01/15] pwm: add the pwm_is_enabled() helper Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 7:47 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-01 8:21 ` [RFC PATCH 02/15] pwm: fix pwm_get_period and pwm_get_duty_cycle prototypes Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 7:50 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-01 8:21 ` [RFC PATCH 03/15] pwm: add pwm_get_polarity helper function Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 7:52 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-01 8:21 ` [RFC PATCH 04/15] pwm: make use of pwm_get_xxx helpers where appropriate Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 8:00 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-01 8:21 ` [RFC PATCH 05/15] pwm: introduce default period and polarity concepts Boris Brezillon
2015-07-02 6:44 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2015-07-02 7:49 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 8:03 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 8:14 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 8:22 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 8:32 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` [RFC PATCH 06/15] pwm: define a new pwm_state struct Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 8:04 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 10:01 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 10:09 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 10:12 ` Boris Brezillon [this message]
2015-07-01 8:21 ` [RFC PATCH 07/15] pwm: move the enabled/disabled info to " Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 8:11 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-01 8:21 ` [RFC PATCH 08/15] backlight: pwm_bl: remove useless call to pwm_set_period Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 8:16 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 8:36 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 8:50 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 9:10 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 9:57 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 10:01 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-01 8:21 ` [RFC PATCH 09/15] pwm: declare a default PWM state Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` [RFC PATCH 10/15] pwm: add the PWM initial state retrieval infra Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 9:01 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 9:42 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` [RFC PATCH 11/15] pwm: add the core infrastructure to allow atomic update Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 8:59 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 9:48 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 10:04 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-01 8:21 ` [RFC PATCH 12/15] pwm: rockchip: add initial state retrieval Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 21:44 ` Heiko Stübner
2015-07-02 7:46 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` [RFC PATCH 13/15] pwm: rockchip: add support for atomic update Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 21:48 ` Heiko Stübner
2015-07-02 7:43 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:22 ` [RFC PATCH 14/15] regulator: pwm: implement ->enable(), ->disable() and ->is_enabled methods Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 11:58 ` Heiko Stübner
2015-07-01 12:05 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 12:08 ` Heiko Stübner
2015-07-01 12:19 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-14 10:50 ` Mark Brown
2015-07-14 11:02 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-14 11:08 ` Mark Brown
2015-07-14 11:16 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:22 ` [RFC PATCH 15/15] regulator: pwm: properly initialize the ->state field Boris Brezillon
2015-07-14 10:51 ` Mark Brown
2015-07-14 11:03 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 21:50 ` [RFC PATCH 16/15] pwm: add informations about polarity, duty cycle and period to debugfs Heiko Stübner
2015-07-02 13:01 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-03 8:43 ` [PATCH] " Heiko Stübner
2015-07-01 21:57 ` [RFC PATCH 00/15] pwm: add support for atomic update Heiko Stübner
2015-07-02 7:55 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-02 7:03 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2015-07-02 7:17 ` Tomi Valkeinen
2015-07-02 7:42 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2015-07-02 7:30 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 7:16 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 7:43 ` Thierry Reding
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20150720121252.559d286a@bbrezillon \
--to=boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).