[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1d407f42-681d-4e8b-86f5-a4d368987115@quicinc.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2024 15:36:00 +0530
From: Ram Kumar Dwivedi <quic_rdwivedi@...cinc.com>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>, <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>,
<James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>, <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
<andersson@...nel.org>
CC: <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Naveen Kumar Goud Arepalli
<quic_narepall@...cinc.com>,
Nitin Rawat <quic_nitirawa@...cinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4] scsi: ufs: qcom: Enable UFS Shared ICE Feature
On 19-Dec-24 10:53 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 12/18/24 10:16 PM, Ram Kumar Dwivedi wrote:
>> On 18-Dec-24 10:49 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>>> On 12/18/24 7:11 AM, Ram Kumar Dwivedi wrote:
>>>> + uint8_t val[4] = { NUM_RX_R1W0, NUM_TX_R0W1, NUM_RX_R1W1, NUM_TX_R1W1 };
>>>
>>> This array can be declared 'static const', isn't it?
>>
>> As this value is not modified in this function, we will declare it as const in next patchset
>
> Why only 'const'? Why not 'static const' as everyone else does for this
> type of arrays?
Hi Bart,
This function will be only called once during boot and "val" is a local variable, we don't see any advantage in making it static.
If you still recommend, i will add the static keyword in next patchset.
Thanks,
Ram.
> Thanks,
>
> Bart.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists