Re: [MFD] Patchset *UPDATED*

[ian <spyro@xxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 2008-07-18 at 14:07 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> Actually, either:

Well...

> struct t7l66xb_platform_data {
> <tab>int<tab>(*enable_clk32k)(struct platform_device *dev);

Explicitly broken if people use a different tabwidth. Indentation level
will be correct but alignment of anything after the 2nd tab is dependant
on the length of whatever is in front of it.

> or:
> 
> struct t7l66xb_platform_data {
> <tab>int<space>(*enable_clk32k)(struct platform_device *dev);

Explicitly not aligning the text after the <space>. This is acceptable,
but IMHO looks awful.

> but not:
> 
> struct t7l66xb_platform_data {
> <tab>int<space><space><space><space>(*enable_clk32k)(struct
> platform_device *dev);

IMHO the most correct method. guarantees correct indentation level and
correct alignment of the text after the spaces.

But I am aware this is the stuff of flamewars ;-)

If I must chose, I chose to explicitly not align the text (your second
example), rather than choose a method that explicitly breaks depending
on your tabwidth (your first one).

Are you making me choose?

-Ian


-------------------------------------------------------------------
List admin: http://lists.arm.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
FAQ:        http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/mailinglists/faq.php
Etiquette:  http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/mailinglists/etiquette.php