Am 03.08.2011 02:27 schrieb Stefan Tauner:
On Wed, 03 Aug 2011 01:51:37 +0200 Carl-Daniel Hailfinger c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006@gmx.net wrote:
Am 03.08.2011 01:27 schrieb Stefan Tauner:
On Wed, 03 Aug 2011 00:07:14 +0200 Carl-Daniel Hailfinger c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006@gmx.net wrote:
-static const struct board_pciid_enable *board_match_coreboot_name(
const char *vendor, const char *part)+static const struct board_pciid_enable *board_match_coreboot_name(const char *vendor,
const char *part)both ugly :)
Indeed. Unfortunately I didn't find any beautiful solution which fit in 80 columns. The second line should be moved a bit to the right, but then we violate the 80 column limit even more. Ideas anyone?
yes, violate the §$&§$ 80 column limit (scnr :) the function could be renamed... and board_pciid_enable is also a very long name for a struct that's used a lot.
Suggestion: struct board_pciid_enable -> struct board_match board_match_coreboot_name() -> board_match_cbname()
What do you think?
Regards, Carl-Daniel