On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 10:57:39PM +0200, Lothar Rubusch wrote: > On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 11:34 AM Andy Shevchenko > <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 22, 2025 at 03:50:06PM +0000, Lothar Rubusch wrote: ... > > > + case IIO_EV_TYPE_MAG: > > > + return adxl345_read_mag_config(st, dir, > > > + ADXL345_ACTIVITY); > > > > It looks like you set the editor to wrap at 72 characters, but here the single > > line less than 80! Note that the limit is *exactly* 80 character. > > > > I have my setup adjusted to 80 characters. Anyway, the cases here is > different, it needs > to be seen in context of the follow up patches. I tried to prepare the > patches now in a way > where changes are mostly "added". Is this correct and desired patch preparation? > > In the particular case, this patch now adds ACTIVITY. A follow up > patch will add INACTIVITY. > Since this is still building up, it will add yet another argument to > those functions, i.e. > > > + return adxl345_write_mag_config(st, dir, > > > + ADXL345_ACTIVITY, > > will become, later > > > return adxl345_write_mag_config(st, dir, > > > ADXL345_ACTIVITY, > > > + ADXL345_INACTIVITY, Yeah, but with the difference that you still remove the added line in the case above (as this example is not the same as what we are talking about). I think you wanted more something like return adxl345_read_mag_config(st, dir, ADXL345_ACTIVITY); ito become return adxl345_read_mag_config(st, dir, ADXL345_INACTIVITY, ADXL345_ACTIVITY); > To make the change more additive, I did linebreaks earlier than 80 > characters. Is this > legitimate in this case? I think so. > If so, I'll keep all related formatting as is (and will only change > the other requests). Sure. > Otherwise, I can do it differently and adopt all the formatting > changes to prioritize 80 characters. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
