On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 12:14:11AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:

On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 04:31:26PM +0000, David Laight wrote:

quoted

...

quoted

quoted

quoted

+	get_device(&chip->dev);
+	chip->devs.release = tpm_devs_release;
+	chip->devs.devt =
+		MKDEV(MAJOR(tpm_devt), chip->dev_num + TPM_NUM_DEVICES);

Isn't this less than 100 chars?

Still best kept under 80 if 'reasonable'?

Really it is just split in the wrong place:
	chip->devs.devt = MKDEV(MAJOR(tpm_devt),
					chip->dev_num + TPM_NUM_DEVICES);

Well it looks crap IMHO. Would be more reasonable to have it in a single 
like. And it is legit too, since it is accepted by checkpatch.

You might break the lines within 80 chars if it is somehow "logically"
consistent.

FWIW, I've become kind of tired of the style wishywashyness I've
mostly been happy to accept anything that clang-format spits out for
ordinary C constructs.

It is good enough and universally usable. If devs don't have it linked
to their editor to format single expression or format selected blocks,
they are missing out :)

The community consensus on style is quite unclear. Is 1 or 2 above the
majority preference? Does this case fall under the new "use more than
80 cols if it improves readability?" I have no idea.

Frankly, for most people writing driver code, if they consistently use
clang-format their work will be alot better than if they try to do it
by hand. It takes a lot of experiance to reliably eyeball something
close to the kernel style..

Jason