On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 08:52:36PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 11:43:28AM -0500, William Breathitt Gray wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 05:33:34PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > >  	unsigned int use_ack:1;
> > >  	unsigned int ack_invert:1;
> > >  	unsigned int clear_ack:1;
> > > +	unsigned int status_invert:1;
> > >  	unsigned int wake_invert:1;
> > > -	unsigned int runtime_pm:1;
> > >  	unsigned int type_in_mask:1;
> > >  	unsigned int clear_on_unmask:1;
> > > +	unsigned int runtime_pm:1;
> > >  	unsigned int not_fixed_stride:1;
> > > -	unsigned int status_invert:1;
> > 
> > These don't look alphabetical, so what is the order for these?
> 
> Nope, the order is to follow:
> a) kernel doc
> b) semantics of each of the groups
> 
> Do you think the order can be improved? Can you point out how?

No, I don't have any particular improvement suggestions, I'm just want
to understand the current order for when I introduce something new here
(e.g. no_status). If I understand correctly, status_invert was moved up
to be with the other "*_invert" flags, but why was runtime_pm moved
to above not_fixed_stride rather than below it?

William Breathitt Gray