Hi Lee,
On 27/10/21 15:44, Lee Jones wrote:
> 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.
Ok, let's see how it works. I'm sending v3 in the next few days.
--
Luca
