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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <YnoJ0k6eIUiwjXSZ@debian-BULLSEYE-live-builder-AMD64>
 <CAHp75Vd574LCnEq-KX=WHnnDyrjZgGu6W9wNEbnw79FBpyx=Lw@mail.gmail.com> <8bd83f45-5278-e817-3f65-88fafd0ad3f4@collabora.com>
In-Reply-To: <8bd83f45-5278-e817-3f65-88fafd0ad3f4@collabora.com>
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 11 May 2022 19:40:31 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHp75VcQYncfCv-2GE0a0e=0iOLBC6wMvoH8pFCirN3NyLzdhw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v11] platform/chrome: Add ChromeOS ACPI device driver
To:     Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@collabora.com>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>,
        Mark Gross <markgross@kernel.org>,
        Benson Leung <bleung@chromium.org>,
        Enric Balletbo i Serra <eballetbo@gmail.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Collabora Kernel ML <kernel@collabora.com>,
        Guenter Roeck <groeck@chromium.org>,
        Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@chromium.org>,
        Gwendal Grignou <gwendal@chromium.org>, vbendeb@chromium.org,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy@infradead.org>,
        Ayman Bagabas <ayman.bagabas@gmail.com>,
        Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@redhat.com>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Bla=C5=BE_Hrastnik?= <blaz@mxxn.io>,
        Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org>,
        Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>,
        Jeremy Soller <jeremy@system76.com>,
        Mattias Jacobsson <2pi@mok.nu>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@kernel.org>,
        Rajat Jain <rajatja@google.com>,
        Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>,
        Platform Driver <platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
        chrome-platform@lists.linux.dev
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 5:59 PM Muhammad Usama Anjum
<usama.anjum@collabora.com> wrote:
> On 5/10/22 2:33 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 8:44 AM Muhammad Usama Anjum
> > <usama.anjum@collabora.com> wrote:

...

> >> +       static struct attribute *attrs_##_group[] = {                                   \
> >> +               &dev_attr_0_##_group.attr,                                              \
> >> +               &dev_attr_1_##_group.attr,                                              \
> >> +               &dev_attr_2_##_group.attr,                                              \
> >> +               &dev_attr_3_##_group.attr,                                              \
> >> +               NULL                                                                    \

(1)

> >> +       };                                                                              \
> >> +       static const struct attribute_group attr_group_##_group = {                     \
> >> +               .name = _name,                                                          \
> >> +               .is_visible = attr_is_visible_gpio_##_num,                              \
> >
> >> +               .attrs = attrs_##_group                                                 \
> >
> > Keep a comma here.

> Is there any particular reason for it?

Yes, if it's not a terminator entry, like (1), the comma would help to
avoid unneeded churm in the future in case someone wants to add
another initialization member.

> If there is, I'll add commas to
> all the structures.

It depends if it is a terminator entry or not, so please check
carefully where to add and where not (the latter example is (1) where
comma is not needed and theoretically might add a confusion).

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko