Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 09/18] iio: afe: iio-rescale: Simplify with
 dev_err_probe()
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>
Cc:     Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>,
        Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@gmx.de>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>,
        Peter Meerwald-Stadler <pmeerw@pmeerw.net>,
        Kukjin Kim <kgene@kernel.org>,
        Michael Hennerich <Michael.Hennerich@analog.com>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@baylibre.com>,
        Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com>,
        Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@baylibre.com>,
        Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com>,
        Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>,
        Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com>,
        Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@st.com>,
        Beniamin Bia <beniamin.bia@analog.com>,
        Tomasz Duszynski <tomasz.duszynski@octakon.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>,
        linux-iio@vger.kernel.org,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        "linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org" 
        <linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-amlogic@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com
References: <20200827192642.1725-1-krzk@kernel.org>
 <20200827192642.1725-9-krzk@kernel.org>
 <f4a5777e-fe85-9f3f-4818-f7539f223adc@axentia.se>
 <20200828062443.GA17343@pi3>
 <3a5cb59b-454e-2c3f-9f31-43147e843c66@axentia.se>
 <CAJKOXPcqNE5U82UThzBTPCvucCf2LsCVSfAHE1vnecJGCKCaig@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Peter Rosin <peda@axentia.se>
Organization: Axentia Technologies AB
Message-ID: <b7a5a441-cda1-ad02-b723-255231f2bd94@axentia.se>
Date:   Fri, 28 Aug 2020 11:39:06 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.11.0
In-Reply-To: <CAJKOXPcqNE5U82UThzBTPCvucCf2LsCVSfAHE1vnecJGCKCaig@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: sv-SE
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-MessageSentRepresentingType: 1
Received: from [192.168.13.3] (85.226.217.78) by HE1PR0402CA0001.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com (2603:10a6:3:d0::11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3326.19 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 09:39:09 +0000
X-Originating-IP: [85.226.217.78]
X-MS-PublicTrafficType: Email
X-MS-Office365-Filtering-Correlation-Id: 9ed3dfb1-6a22-4589-f0dc-08d84b363831
X-MS-TrafficTypeDiagnostic: DB8PR02MB5963:
X-Microsoft-Antispam-PRVS: <DB8PR02MB5963383356CD6038E2B0F274BC520@DB8PR02MB5963.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com>
X-MS-Oob-TLC-OOBClassifiers: OLM:1148;
X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck: 1
X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;
X-Microsoft-Antispam-Message-Info: XTd8DqynySNqAAJtw9purTjVqgkJCArFCtgGBUXJPWMk4oUMl22DbfgaMdz5y6tHRu+Z34Y9mg+lHQ+G3+AZJnB+RJxDMLH0QKV5c2Vy8zQpbi+ZIbd10rvAZoW11x7uYq7a9Wgu6iUVPQ16N6+K+XW8G7eedtSgJMpHFkH+h6Ms2Y8SnQ3vGtbsZOitZjWCf9yehqxtbj2fUHwLsWYXDdYLvS2WlmBrjGmiiQYx2AXhS9uIYlTiWE2uTq1hV/N1Y64sznyM3wNti/nkNfW6jjit2n05p/1zI6HGenOPH8UEtJ7bLkLPwLpYDn94/OdEjd/ptmMzQLHxnzKjb6qHhrv1DuaSHs7kURHPfcashNbGDVbI0petAlQePLhtyaGc
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:255.255.255.255;CTRY:;LANG:en;SCL:1;SRV:;IPV:NLI;SFV:NSPM;H:DB8PR02MB5482.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com;PTR:;CAT:NONE;SFS:(346002)(136003)(396003)(39830400003)(376002)(366004)(186003)(53546011)(26005)(86362001)(66946007)(36756003)(16526019)(36916002)(66476007)(52116002)(54906003)(8936002)(31686004)(6486002)(2906002)(7416002)(316002)(66556008)(83380400001)(5660300002)(8676002)(956004)(478600001)(31696002)(6666004)(2616005)(6916009)(16576012)(4326008)(43740500002);DIR:OUT;SFP:1102;
X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData: 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
X-OriginatorOrg: axentia.se
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 9ed3dfb1-6a22-4589-f0dc-08d84b363831
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: DB8PR02MB5482.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Aug 2020 09:39:11.9207
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 4ee68585-03e1-4785-942a-df9c1871a234
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-MailboxType: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-UserPrincipalName: BXh13lGNev0aiotYE+QTZLXyzYRvdCwLAtJqH/a/ess20cFCKz3nyHzYhEQXS3GM
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DB8PR02MB5963
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


On 2020-08-28 09:03, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 at 08:58, Peter Rosin <peda@axentia.se> wrote:
>>>> I'm not a huge fan of adding *one* odd line breaking the 80 column
>>>> recommendation to any file. I like to be able to fit multiple
>>>> windows side by side in a meaningful way. Also, I don't like having
>>>> a shitload of emptiness on my screen, which is what happens when some
>>>> lines are longer and you want to see it all. I strongly believe that
>>>> the 80 column rule/recommendation is still as valid as it ever was.
>>>> It's just hard to read longish lines; there's a reason newspapers
>>>> columns are quite narrow...
>>>>
>>>> Same comment for the envelope-detector (3/18).
>>>>
>>>> You will probably never look at these files again, but *I* might have
>>>> to revisit them for one reason or another, and these long lines will
>>>> annoy me when that happens.
>>>
>>> Initially I posted it with 80-characters wrap. Then I received a comment
>>> - better to stick to the new 100, as checkpatch accepts it.
>>>
>>> Now you write, better to go back to 80.
>>>
>>> Maybe then someone else will write to me, better to go to 100.
>>>
>>> And another person will reply, no, coding style still mentions 80, so
>>> keep it at 80.
>>>
>>> Sure guys, please first decide which one you prefer, then I will wrap it
>>> accordingly. :)
>>>
>>> Otherwise I will just jump from one to another depending on one person's
>>> personal preference.
>>>
>>> If there is no consensus among discussing people, I find this 100 line
>>> more readable, already got review, checkpatch accepts it so if subsystem
>>> maintainer likes it, I prefer to leave it like this.
>>
>> I'm not impressed by that argument. For the files I have mentioned, it
>> does not matter very much to me if you and some random person think that
>> 100 columns might *slightly* improve readability.
>>
>> Quoting coding-style
>>
>>   Statements longer than 80 columns should be broken into sensible chunks,
>>   unless exceeding 80 columns significantly increases readability and does
>>   not hide information.
>>
>> Notice that word? *significantly*
> 
> Notice also checkpatch change...

How is that relevant? checkpatch has *never* had the final say and its
heuristics can never be perfect. Meanwhile, coding style is talking about
exactly the case under discussion, and agrees with me perfectly.

> First of all, I don't have a preference over wrapping here. As I said,
> I sent v1 with 80 and got a response to change it to 100. You want me
> basically to bounce from A to B to A to B.
> 
>> Why do I even have to speak up about this? WTF?
> 
> Because we all share here our ideas...
> 
>> For the patches that touch files that I originally wrote [1], my
>> preference should be clear by now.
> 
> I understood your preference. There is nothing unclear here. Other
> person had different preference. I told you my arguments that it is
> not reasonable to jump A->B->A->B just because each person has a
> different view. At the end it's the subsystem maintainer's decision as
> he wants to keep his subsystem clean.

Yeah, I bet he is thrilled about it.

Cheers,
Peter