On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 12:09:26 +0200
Thierry Reding [off-list ref] wrote:

On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 12:01:16PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:

quoted

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 10:04:59 +0200
Thierry Reding [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 10:21:52AM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
[...]

quoted

diff --git a/include/linux/pwm.h b/include/linux/pwm.h

[...]

quoted

+struct pwm_state {
+	unsigned int		period; 	/* in nanoseconds */
+	unsigned int		duty_cycle;	/* in nanoseconds */
+	enum pwm_polarity	polarity;
+};

No need for the extra padding here.

What do you mean by "extra padding" ?
I just reused the indentation used in the pwm_device struct.

Yeah, I have a local patch to fix that up. I find it useless to pad
things like this, and it has the downside that it will become totally
inconsistent (or cause a lot of churn by reformatting) if ever you add a
field that extends beyond the padding. Single spaces don't have any such
drawbacks and, in my opinion, look just as good.

I prefer the single space approach too, so I won't complain ;-).

quoted

Would you prefer something like that ?

struct pwm_state {
	unsigned int period; 		/* in nanoseconds */
	unsigned int duty_cycle;	/* in nanoseconds */
	enum pwm_polarity polarity;
};

Yeah. I'd say even the comments would be more suited in a kerneldoc-
style comment:

	/**
	 * struct pwm_state - state of a PWM channel
	 * @period: PWM period (in nanoseconds)
	 * @duty_cycle: PWM duty cycle (in nanoseconds)
	 * @polarity: PWM polarity
	 */
	struct pwm_state {
		unsigned int period;
		unsigned int duty_cycle;
		enum pwm_polarity polarity;
	};

This is something that users will need to deal with, so eventually
somebody might look at this via some DocBook generated HTML or PDF.

I agree.

-- 
Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com