Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752304AbdFTKC0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Jun 2017 06:02:26 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:38142 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750925AbdFTKCX (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Jun 2017 06:02:23 -0400 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org C99422397B Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=krzk@kernel.org MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <20170619163110.28173-1-krzk@kernel.org> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 12:02:21 +0200 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] drm/exynos/decon: Add include guard to the Exynos7 header To: Emil Velikov Cc: Inki Dae , Joonyoung Shim , Seung-Woo Kim , Kyungmin Park , David Airlie , Kukjin Kim , Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz , ML dri-devel , LAKML , "moderated list:ARM/S5P EXYNOS AR..." , "Linux-Kernel@Vger. Kernel. Org" , linux-fbdev , Marek Szyprowski Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1281 Lines: 34 On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Emil Velikov wrote: > On 19 June 2017 at 17:31, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> Although header is included only once but still having an include guard >> is a good practice. To avoid confusion, add SoC prefix to existing >> Exynos5433 header include guard. >> >> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski >> --- >> include/video/exynos5433_decon.h | 6 +++--- >> include/video/exynos7_decon.h | 5 +++++ >> 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/include/video/exynos5433_decon.h b/include/video/exynos5433_decon.h >> index 78957c9626f5..b30362da5692 100644 >> --- a/include/video/exynos5433_decon.h >> +++ b/include/video/exynos5433_decon.h >> @@ -6,8 +6,8 @@ >> * published by the Free Software Foundationr >> */ >> >> -#ifndef EXYNOS_REGS_DECON_H >> -#define EXYNOS_REGS_DECON_H >> +#ifndef EXYNOS5433_REGS_DECON_H >> +#define EXYNOS5433_REGS_DECON_H >> > Drop the _REGS_ part from the guard on each header? The file name/path > does not have it, plus it'll save some WTF moments when > exynos{5433,7}_regs_decon.h comes about. So maybe it makes sense to reorder these patches and use the guard name matching final file name? Best regards, Krzysztof