Re: [PATCH v2 01/11] media: tw9910: Re-order variables declaration

[Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@s-opensource.com>]

Em Fri,  2 Mar 2018 15:46:33 +0100
Jacopo Mondi <jacopo+renesas@jmondi.org> escreveu:

> Re-order variables declaration to respect 'reverse christmas tree'
> ordering whenever possible.

To be frank, I don't like the idea of reverse christmas tree ordering
myself... Perhaps due to the time I used to program on assembler, 
where alignment issues could happen, I find a way more logic to order
based on complexity and size of the argument...

> 
> Signed-off-by: Jacopo Mondi <jacopo+renesas@jmondi.org>
> ---
>  drivers/media/i2c/tw9910.c | 23 +++++++++++------------
>  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/tw9910.c b/drivers/media/i2c/tw9910.c
> index cc648de..3a5e307 100644
> --- a/drivers/media/i2c/tw9910.c
> +++ b/drivers/media/i2c/tw9910.c
> @@ -406,9 +406,9 @@ static void tw9910_reset(struct i2c_client *client)
>  
>  static int tw9910_power(struct i2c_client *client, int enable)
>  {
> -	int ret;
>  	u8 acntl1;
>  	u8 acntl2;
> +	int ret;

... So, in this case, the order is already the right one, according
with my own criteria :-)

There was some discussion about the order sometime ago at LKML:

	https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9411999/

As I'm not seeing the proposed patch there at checkpatch, nor any
comments about xmas tree at coding style, I think that there were no
agreements about the ordering.

So, while there's no consensus about that, let's keep it as-is.

Regards,
Mauro