Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 18 Apr 2022 14:15:38 +0530
From:   Pratyush Yadav <p.yadav@ti.com>
To:     <Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com>
CC:     <michael@walle.cc>, <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>, <richard@nod.at>,
        <vigneshr@ti.com>, <linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <Nicolas.Ferre@microchip.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] mtd: spi-nor: Favor the BFPT-parsed
 set_4byte_addr_mode method
Message-ID: <20220418084538.ccvqhbik6a7ffz5j@ti.com>
References: <20220411125346.118274-1-tudor.ambarus@microchip.com>
 <20220411125346.118274-4-tudor.ambarus@microchip.com>
 <a6519a1ce39534c35760334cd69396b3@walle.cc>
 <2c77371b-355a-5a1a-a83d-7bf40b088683@microchip.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <2c77371b-355a-5a1a-a83d-7bf40b088683@microchip.com>
Precedence: bulk

On 14/04/22 09:32AM, Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com wrote:
> On 4/14/22 12:21, Michael Walle wrote:
> >> +static void macronix_nor_late_init(struct spi_nor *nor)
> >> +{
> >> +???? if (!nor->params->set_4byte_addr_mode)
> >> +???????????? nor->params->set_4byte_addr_mode =
> >> +???????????????????? spi_nor_set_4byte_addr_mode_en4b_ex4b;
> > 
> > This is more of a general question. Can we have this in one
> > line? IMHO this looks awful and since linux nowadays relaxed the
> > 80 chars rule a bit and we have such long names.. I think it makes
> > sense to allow some lines to be longer than 80 chars.
> 
> I still split my terminal in multiple windows and pretty much read
> code in a 80 chars limit. But I won't argue with you, it seems you
> care about it, so I'll change it.

FWIW, I do the same. I won't like it much if line lengths get too long. 
I won't take any sides here though, either should be fine as long as the 
result at least fits in 100 chars.

-- 
Regards,
Pratyush Yadav
Texas Instruments Inc.