On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 10:46:28PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 8:11 PM Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 07:41:54PM +0200, andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > Fri, Aug 04, 2023 at 11:46:02AM +0100, Charles Keepax kirjoitti: > > > > + unsigned int hs2 = 0x2 << CS42L43_HSDET_MODE_SHIFT; > > > BIT(1) ? > > Given that this is writing a value into a register field called "MODE" > > it seems very likely that it's an enumeration value rather than a > > bitmask (and similarly for all the other places where you're making > > similar comments). Please think a bit more about the code being > > commented on when making these minor stylistic comments. > I read a bit further and have given a comment about this as you put it > above that they are plain values. > Please, read my comments in full. I did eventually find that while going through the other comments but given that the earlier ones hadn't been revised and it was all a bunch of different fields it still seemed useful to highlight, if nothing else it was a little unclear that your later comment applied to all the fields you were asking for updates to. In general in a case like this where the code is already in tree it does seem like it'd be better to just write patche for the stylistic issues.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
