On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 12:57 PM, Emil Velikov <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 20 June 2017 at 11:02, Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Emil Velikov <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>> On 19 June 2017 at 17:31, Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> 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 <[email protected]>
>>>> ---
>>>> 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
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
