linux-fbdev.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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

  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).