On Thu, 2024-10-10 at 19:52 +0200, Angelo Dureghello wrote: > 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. > Oh, I see... Well, still don't think it's worth the churn but he has the last word on this :) - Nuno Sá
