On Fri, 11 Oct 2024 08:47:00 +0200 Nuno Sá <noname.nuno@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 :) For some of the fields there was no connect between the field naming and the register whereas there was for others. That makes it easy for bugs to hide. So on balance I do like this patch. The disadvantage is that the fix in patch 1 will either cause us dependency issues or have to wait for the merge window. Given no one shouted about the bug before I guess merge window is probably soon enough. Jonathan > > - Nuno Sá >
