Hi Nuno, On 10.10.2024 14:59, Nuno Sá wrote: > On Tue, 2024-10-08 at 17:43 +0200, Angelo Dureghello wrote: > > From: Angelo Dureghello <adureghello@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Non functional, readability change. > > > > Update register names so that register bitfields can be more easily > > linked to the register name. > > > > Signed-off-by: Angelo Dureghello <adureghello@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > I don't fully agree that this is so much better that's worth the churn... > > From a quick a look I saw (I think) some defines where _REG seems to be missing. > Those is fine to change for consistency but I don't really seeing the big > benefit in changing them all. > > (Sorry for only complaining in v5 about this...) > no problem, the change was suggested from Jonathan, was not something i need, let's see if he has further feedbacks, in case i can roll back easily. > - Nuno Sá > > Regards, angelo
