[RFC] CamelCase can it be fixed per Checkpatch.pl script

[RFC] CamelCase can it be fixed per Checkpatch.pl script

[Ashok Kumar]

[-- Attachment #1: mtxt --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 500 bytes --]

Found some files in Staging Drivers for which checkpatch.pl throws a CHECK to
+remove CamelCase.

For instance in program vt6655/card.c find the usage of CamelCase as
i) Variable names eg: &priv->apTD0Rings[0]
ii) Function names eg: void CARDvSafeResetRx(

Note: some of the functions are
+static functions

Reviewed lore and seems in some instances removing CamelCase was allowed and in
+some case removing them was disallowed.

Hence wanted comments if we should change them or not.

Thanks
Ashok

Re: [RFC] CamelCase can it be fixed per Checkpatch.pl script

[Dmitry Baryshkov]

On Mon, May 06, 2024 at 09:20:17PM -0700, Ashok Kumar wrote:
> Found some files in Staging Drivers for which checkpatch.pl throws a CHECK to
> +remove CamelCase.
> 
> For instance in program vt6655/card.c find the usage of CamelCase as
> i) Variable names eg: &priv->apTD0Rings[0]
> ii) Function names eg: void CARDvSafeResetRx(
> 
> Note: some of the functions are
> +static functions
> 
> Reviewed lore and seems in some instances removing CamelCase was allowed and in
> +some case removing them was disallowed.
> 
> Hence wanted comments if we should change them or not.

It's better to work with the corresponding driver maintainer. Generic
comment is that functions must be renamed, while variables / fields
naming usually depends on the maintainer's decision.

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry