Re: [PATCH v1 1/3] pinctrl: intel: Refactor intel_gpio_add_pin_ranges() to make it shorter

[Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 7:27 AM Mika Westerberg
<mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2025 at 06:06:16PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 17, 2025 at 1:27 PM Mika Westerberg
> > <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 17, 2025 at 08:56:59AM +0100, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

...

> > > >       struct intel_pinctrl *pctrl = gpiochip_get_data(gc);
> > > > +     struct device *dev = pctrl->dev;
> > >
> > > I prefer this keeping the reverse christmas tree.
> >
> > And I prefer the logical split, if possible. putting it in between the
> > intel_community and intel_paggroup lines seems worse to me than the
> > proposed case.
> >
> > > Also it can be const.
> >
> > True, and it makes things closer to what you want if I leave it on the
> > same line. Do you agree with my reasoning?
>
> As long as it keeps the reverse chrismas tree after you add const.

So, it means "no" then?
Let me try again. The current looking is this:

> > > >       const struct intel_community *community;
> > > >       const struct intel_padgroup *grp;
> > > >       int ret;


After what you are so insisting it will be like

       const struct intel_community *community;
       const struct device *dev = pctrl->dev;
       const struct intel_padgroup *grp;
       int ret;

which disrupts the established grouping of the Intel pin control
related definitions. And in all other functions where two definitions
appear they are never interleaved with other definitions. And I would
like to keep it that way. So, with my proposal it will be like

       const struct device *dev = pctrl->dev;
       const struct intel_community *community;
       const struct intel_padgroup *grp;
       int ret;

or like

       const struct intel_community *community;
       const struct intel_padgroup *grp;
       const struct device *dev = pctrl->dev;
       int ret;

which is not strictly reversed order (but the upper one is close
enough, like a couple of characters shorter than "required").

If you are still insisting on the strict xmas tree reversed order,
assume I drop this change because I reasoned why I want the way I put
it, can you review the rest of the series, please?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko