On Wed, 27 Oct 2021, Luca Ceresoli wrote:
> Hi Lee,
>
> On 21/10/21 20:43, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Tue, 19 Oct 2021, Luca Ceresoli wrote:
> [...]
> >> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/max77714.c b/drivers/mfd/max77714.c
> >> new file mode 100644
> >> index 000000000000..4b49d16fe199
> >> --- /dev/null
> >> +++ b/drivers/mfd/max77714.c
> >> @@ -0,0 +1,165 @@
> >> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
> >> +/*
> >> + * Maxim MAX77714 MFD Driver
> >> + *
> >> + * Copyright (C) 2021 Luca Ceresoli
> >> + * Author: Luca Ceresoli <luca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> + */
> >> +
> >> +#include <linux/i2c.h>
> >> +#include <linux/interrupt.h>
> >> +#include <linux/mfd/core.h>
> >> +#include <linux/mfd/max77714.h>
> >> +#include <linux/module.h>
> >> +#include <linux/of.h>
> >> +#include <linux/regmap.h>
> >> +
> >> +struct max77714 {
> >> + struct device *dev;
> >> + struct regmap *regmap;
> >> + struct regmap_irq_chip_data *irq_data;
> >
> > Is this used outside of .probe()?
>
> No.
Then you don't need to store it in a struct.
[...]
> >> + /* Internal Crystal Load Capacitance, indexed by value of 32KLOAD bits */
> >> + static const unsigned int load_cap[4] = {0, 10, 12, 22};
> >
> > Probably best to define these magic numbers.
>
> Since these numbers do not appear anywhere else I don't find added value in:
>
> #define MAX77714_LOAD_CAP_0 0
> #define MAX77714_LOAD_CAP_10 10
> #define MAX77714_LOAD_CAP_12 12
> #define MAX77714_LOAD_CAP_22 22
> [...]
> static const unsigned int load_cap[4] = {
> MAX77714_LOAD_CAP_0,
> MAX77714_LOAD_CAP_10,
> MAX77714_LOAD_CAP_12,
> MAX77714_LOAD_CAP_12,
> };
I don't find value in that nomenclature either! :)
I was suggesting that you used better, more forthcoming names.
LOAD_CAPACITANCE_00_pF
LOAD_CAPACITANCE_10_pF
LOAD_CAPACITANCE_12_pF
LOAD_CAPACITANCE_22_pF
> besides adding lots of lines and lots of "MAX77714_LOAD_CAP_". Even
> worse, there is potential for copy-paste errors -- can you spot it? ;)
Yes. Straight away.
> Finally, consider this is not even global but local to a small function.
>
> But I'd rather add the unit ("pF") to either the comment line of the
> array name (load_cap -> load_cap_pf) for clarity. Would that be OK for you?
I did have to read the code again to get a handle on things (probably
not a good sign). To keep things simple, just add "/* pF */" onto the
end of the load_cap line for now. That should clear things up at
first glance.
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
