[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aEwfgP3tiio52Rj-@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2025 15:54:24 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>
To: Jean-Baptiste Maneyrol <Jean-Baptiste.Maneyrol@....com>
Cc: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com>,
Nuno Sá <nuno.sa@...log.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>,
"linux-iio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] iio: imu: inv_icm42600: add WoM support
On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 03:53:36PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 12:46:46PM +0000, Jean-Baptiste Maneyrol wrote:
> > >From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>
> > >Sent: Friday, June 13, 2025 10:29
> > >On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 09:34:26AM +0200, Jean-Baptiste Maneyrol via B4 Relay wrote:
...
> > >Overall, looking to this patch again, I think it would be better to prepend it
> > >by replacing *int*_t types by the respective uXX ones. Because in this patch
> > >we add dozens of new ones which increases an unneeded churn in the future.
> > >
> > In my opinion, to respect the rule don't mix *int*_t and uXX types, it is better
> > to keep *int*_t types. If it need to be changed, we can change afterward the
> > whole driver types with a replace tool and send it in a separate patch.
>
> It will be never ending story, sorry. We need someone to solve this tech debt.
> And since this patch adds more than 3 new users of it, I think it's a candidate
> to embrace the burden.
For your convenience I can mock-up a change...
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists