Re: [PATCH 4/6] PCI: qcom: Clean up ASPM comment

[Manivannan Sadhasivam <mani@kernel.org>]

On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 12:00:44PM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 04:24:04PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 11:48:10AM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 04:02:27PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 02:55:51PM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > > > > Break up the newly added ASPM comment so that it fits within the soft 80
> > > > > character limit and becomes more readable.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@kernel.org>
> > > > 
> > > > I think we discussed (80column soft limit for comments) in the past, but I don't
> > > > think breaking here makes the comment more readable.
> > > 
> > > The coding style clearly states:
> > > 
> > > 	The preferred limit on the length of a single line is 80 columns.
> > > 
> > > 	Statements longer than 80 columns should be broken into sensible chunks,
> > > 	unless exceeding 80 columns significantly increases readability and does
> > > 	not hide information.
> > > 
> > > Going beyond 80 chars may sometimes be warranted for code, but the
> > > exception is not intended for comments.
> > 
> > Breaking the comment here is indeed making it hard to read. It's just one word
> > that needs to be broken if we go by 80 column limit and I won't prefer that,
> > sorry!
> 
> Please read the above quote again, it is as clear as it gets. 80 chars
> is the preferred limit unless (for code) exceeding it *significantly*

Where does it say "code" in the Documentation? As I read it, the doc weighs both
code and comment as "statement".

And how on the world that breaking a single word to the next line improves
readability? I fail to get it :/

> increases readability, which clearly isn't the case here (even if this
> exception applied to comments).
> 
> I really don't understand why you keep insisting on this. Just fix your
> editor.
> 

May you should fix yours to extend the limit to 100?

But I do not want to get into a spat here. Checkpatch, the tool supposed to
check for the kernel coding style is not complaining and I do not want a patch
that _fixes_ a coding style that is not an issue.

And I do not want to argue more on this. If the PCI maintainers are comfortable
with this patch, they can apply it, but I'm not.

- Mani

> Johan

-- 
மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்