[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190227200537.GB11065@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 20:05:37 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Olliver Schinagl <oliver@...inagl.nl>
Cc: Axel Lin <axel.lin@...ics.com>, Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>,
Priit Laes <plaes@...es.org>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] regulator: axp20x: Get rid of AXP20X_xxx_START/END/STEPS
defines
On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 08:41:46PM +0100, Olliver Schinagl wrote:
> On 25-02-2019 18:25, Mark Brown wrote:
> > If you find you need to describe what the fields are it would be much
> > more constructive to add a comment at the top of the table saying what
> > they are. As things are this isn't helping anyone - as a big pile of
> > defines it's hard to read the values without context for how they're
> > used and if you're looking at the table you can't tell what the
> > regulator actually supports without going and decoding the defines.
> Then the name of the define should be more constructive, which imo they
> are reasonably? But as everything with programming, naming things is the
> he hardest part, right?
I really don't think that's it - I think that sometimes a data table is
just a data table. There are some coding styles that work to avoid
having raw numbers anywhere in code outside of defines at all costs but
I do think that goes too far in cases like this where the name of the
define is at some level just going to summarize what should go in a
given slot in a table which adds little.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists