Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 10 Feb 2014 18:36:47 +0000 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] mfd: MAX6650/6651 support | From | Laszlo Papp <> |
| |
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 3:20 PM, Sachin Kamat <sachin.kamat@linaro.org> wrote: > On 10 February 2014 17:51, Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> wrote: >>> > +#include <linux/device.h> >>> > +#include <linux/mfd/core.h> >>> > +#include <linux/module.h> >>> > +#include <linux/i2c.h> >>> >>> Please arrange these alphabetically. >> >> Why? > > 1. It makes it easier to avoid adding duplicate includes. > 2. Code looks more ordered/organized. > 3. Prevents further clean up patches arranging them so :)
1) I am sorry, but I need to disagree with this one, personally. Check duplicates could be done by a util at any given moment if it becomes a pressing issue.
2) Not for me. I prefer hierarchical dependency based inclusion between headers if there is such a thing, or just orthogonal if not.
3) It does not apply to my taste due to 1-2).
I would also like to add further detriments:
4) file rename could rearrange the list with your suggestion.
5) It would be inconsistent with a large code base out there.
| |