linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: iio: ad5933: Fix CamelCase naming

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <2025030301-niece-evacuate-0f05@gregkh>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2025 13:56:40 +0100
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Saalim Quadri <danascape@...il.com>
Cc: jic23@...nel.org, lars@...afoo.de, Michael.Hennerich@...log.com,
	linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: iio: ad5933: Fix CamelCase naming

On Mon, Mar 03, 2025 at 06:22:46PM +0530, Saalim Quadri wrote:
> Reported by checkpatch:
> 
> CHECK: Avoid CamelCase
> 
> Signed-off-by: Saalim Quadri <danascape@...il.com>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/iio/impedance-analyzer/ad5933.c | 16 ++++++++--------
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/iio/impedance-analyzer/ad5933.c b/drivers/staging/iio/impedance-analyzer/ad5933.c
> index d5544fc2fe98..a1a5eee4f736 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/iio/impedance-analyzer/ad5933.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/iio/impedance-analyzer/ad5933.c
> @@ -43,10 +43,10 @@
>  #define AD5933_CTRL_POWER_DOWN		(0xA << 4)
>  #define AD5933_CTRL_STANDBY		(0xB << 4)
>  
> -#define AD5933_CTRL_RANGE_2000mVpp	(0x0 << 1)
> -#define AD5933_CTRL_RANGE_200mVpp	(0x1 << 1)
> -#define AD5933_CTRL_RANGE_400mVpp	(0x2 << 1)
> -#define AD5933_CTRL_RANGE_1000mVpp	(0x3 << 1)
> +#define AD5933_CTRL_RANGE_2000MVPP	(0x0 << 1)
> +#define AD5933_CTRL_RANGE_200MVPP	(0x1 << 1)
> +#define AD5933_CTRL_RANGE_400MVPP	(0x2 << 1)
> +#define AD5933_CTRL_RANGE_1000MVPP	(0x3 << 1)

No, these are units of measurement, the "m" is correct here, right?  If
you change that to "M" it logically means something a lot different :(

Please always treat checkpatch.pl as a hint, not as a rule.

thanks,

greg k-h