Re: [PATCH v2 7/8] auxdisplay: Add Titanmec TM16xx 7-segment display controllers driver

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 30/06/2025 11:54, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 11:27:21AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 30/06/2025 09:27, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 08:12:16AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 29/06/2025 15:18, Jean-François Lessard wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
>>>>> +	display->leds =
>>>>> +		devm_kcalloc(dev, display->num_leds, sizeof(*display->leds), GFP_KERNEL);
>>>>
>>>> Wrong wrapping. Use kernel style, not clang style.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> +	if (!display->leds)
>>>>> +		return -ENOMEM;
>>>
>>> Just wondering how .clang-format is official? Note some of the maintainers even
>>
>> First time I hear above clang style is preferred. Where is it expected?
> 
> Documented here:
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/coding-style.html#you-ve-made-a-mess-of-it

I mean, which maintainers prefer such style of wrapping. Above I know,
but it does not solve the discussion we have here - above line wrapping
preferred by clang and opposite to most of the kernel code.

> 
> For example, discussed here
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAPcyv4ij3s+9uO0f9aLHGj3=ACG7hAjZ0Rf=tyFmpt3+uQyymw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/


Heh, I read it and two emails earlier and still could not get they
prefer to wrap at assignment instead of standard checkpatch-preferred
wrapping at arguments.

> or here
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/64dbeffcf243a_47b5729487@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.notmuch/

This is line length, so not the problem discussed here.


> or
> ...
> 
>> I assume clang-format is half-working and should not be used blindly,
>> but fixed to match actual kernel coding style.
> 
> That sounds like the case, at least in accordance with Miguel.
> 
>>> prefer (ugly in some cases in my opinion) style because it's generated by the
>>> clang-format.
> 


Best regards,
Krzysztof