lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2020 07:06:16 +0000 From: "Vaittinen, Matti" <Matti.Vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com> To: "lee.jones@...aro.org" <lee.jones@...aro.org> CC: "dmurphy@...com" <dmurphy@...com>, "linux-leds@...r.kernel.org" <linux-leds@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com" <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>, "mazziesaccount@...il.com" <mazziesaccount@...il.com>, "mturquette@...libre.com" <mturquette@...libre.com>, "lgirdwood@...il.com" <lgirdwood@...il.com>, "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, "linus.walleij@...aro.org" <linus.walleij@...aro.org>, "a.zummo@...ertech.it" <a.zummo@...ertech.it>, "mark.rutland@....com" <mark.rutland@....com>, "robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>, "bgolaszewski@...libre.com" <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>, "linux-clk@...r.kernel.org" <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>, "sboyd@...nel.org" <sboyd@...nel.org>, "pavel@....cz" <pavel@....cz>, "jacek.anaszewski@...il.com" <jacek.anaszewski@...il.com>, "broonie@...nel.org" <broonie@...nel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 08/13] regulator: bd718x7: Split driver to common and bd718x7 specific parts Hello, On Fri, 2020-01-17 at 13:40 +0000, Lee Jones wrote: > On Fri, 17 Jan 2020, Vaittinen, Matti wrote: > > > > > > > > +enum { > > > > + ROHM_DVS_LEVEL_UNKNOWN, > > > > + ROHM_DVS_LEVEL_RUN, > > > > + ROHM_DVS_LEVEL_IDLE, > > > > + ROHM_DVS_LEVEL_SUSPEND, > > > > + ROHM_DVS_LEVEL_LPSR, > > > > +#define ROHM_DVS_LEVEL_MAX ROHM_DVS_LEVEL_LPSR > > > > > > Haven't seen this before. Is it legit? > > > > > > > I don't know why it wouldn't be :) I kind of grew used to that when > > I > > still did some networking stuff. > > Networking it not a good example. > > It's full of odd little quirks to the standard styling. That was quite a strong wording... Some people might disagree :) Anyways, as far as I know the preprocessor does not care about where the preprocessor directives are placed. It just goes through the file sequentially and macro definitions take effect at the place you write them. And actual compiler does not see the directive - just code which has been replaced. So from C point of view I see no problem here. From coding conventions or guidelines point of view - well, that's more of your territory ;) > > What about: > > > ROHM_DVS_LEVEL_MAX = ROHM_DVS_LEVEL_LPSR > > > > Anyways, I don't see why define wouldn't be Ok here - but sure it > > can > > be changed if you insist ;) Just let me know if you can accept the > > define or not :) > > Let's go for not in this instance. :D Ok. I sent v11 where this has been changed as you suggested :) Br, --Matti
Powered by blists - more mailing lists