At Thu, 24 Jul 2008 11:31:00 +0200, Rene Herman wrote:
-CS4236_DOUBLE("Master Digital Playback Switch", 0, CS4236_LEFT_MASTER, CS4236_RIGHT_MASTER, 7, 7, 1, 1), -CS4236_DOUBLE("Master Digital Capture Switch", 0, CS4236_DAC_MUTE, CS4236_DAC_MUTE, 7, 6, 1, 1), +CS4236_DOUBLE("Master Digital Playback Switch", 0,
CS4236_LEFT_MASTER, CS4236_RIGHT_MASTER, 7, 7, 1, 1),+CS4236_DOUBLE("Master Digital Capture Switch", 0,
CS4236_DAC_MUTE, CS4236_DAC_MUTE, 7, 6, 1, 1),I can't say I'm personally a fan of these kinds of changes. The point of them would supposedly be to make the code more readable but as far as I am concerned it does the reverse.
I know that Takashi can be an 80-column fundamentalist so I'll not object I guess. I'd personally like these (all) restored to a single line but if he doesn't, so be it.
Exactly. It was done for Takashi.
Yes, he overrides. I'd try to get away with just saying no though. That checkpatch thing desperately needs a clue.
Well, I still prefer folding lines to fit 80-column - of course only if the result is somewhat reasonable and more readable.
Usually, you set the ter minal with 80-column, an d, longer lines are diff icult to read.
With appropriate line- breaks, it becomes far easier to read.
Takashi (love 80's)