On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 12:57 PM, Emil Velikov [off-list ref] wrote:

On 20 June 2017 at 11:02, Krzysztof Kozlowski [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Emil Velikov [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 19 June 2017 at 17:31, Krzysztof Kozlowski [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

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 <krzk@kernel.org>
---
 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?

That sounds better, IMHO.

OK then, I'll re-order the patches and use matching name
(EXYNOS_REGS_DECON{5433,7}_H).

Best regards,
Krzysztof