Re: [PATCH net-next v8 6/9] net: txgbe: Support GPIO to SFP socket

Russell King (Oracle)
2023-05-16T10:32:09Z

On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 11:39:08AM +0200, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> On Tue, 2023-05-16 at 10:12 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 5:39 AM Jiawen Wu <jiawenwu@trustnetic.com> wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > > > + struct gpio_irq_chip *girq;
> > > > > + struct wx *wx = txgbe->wx;
> > > > > + struct gpio_chip *gc;
> > > > > + struct device *dev;
> > > > > + int ret;
> > > >
> > > > > + dev = &wx->pdev->dev;
> > > >
> > > > This can be united with the defintion above.
> > > >
> > > > struct device *dev = &wx->pdev->dev;
> > > >
> > >
> > > This is a question that I often run into, when I want to keep this order,
> > > i.e. lines longest to shortest, but the line of the pointer which get later
> > > is longer. For this example:
> > >
> > > struct wx *wx = txgbe->wx;
> > > struct device *dev = &wx->pdev->dev;
> >
> > So, we locate assignments according to the flow. I do not see an issue here.
>
> That would break the reverse x-mass tree order.
>
> > > should I split the line, or put the long line abruptly there?
> >
> > The latter is fine.
>
> This is minor, but I have to disagree. My understanding is that
> respecting the reversed x-mass tree is preferred. In case of dependent
> initialization as the above, the preferred style it the one used by
> this patch.

Meanwhile, I've been told something completely different, and therefore
I do something else, namely:

struct device *dev;
struct wx *wx;

wx = txgbe->wx;
dev = &wx->pdev->dev;

...

I've been lead to believe that this is preferred in netdev to breaking
the reverse christmas-tree due to dependent initialisations.

--
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!