On Tue, Jun 09, 2020 at 03:44:18PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > On 6/9/20 1:32 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 07, 2020 at 08:18:35PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: ... > > And again... :-( > > Well yes I cannot help it that the original code, as submitted by Intel, > was of very questionable quality, so instead of just converting it to the > atomic PWM API I had to do a ton of bugfixes first... I tried to do > this all in small bits rather then in a single big rewrite the buggy > <beep> commit to make life easier for reviewers. Yes, I know about that old code quality, sorry, we were not at Intel that time (or were just right-less newbies). > I can introduce the crc_pwm_calc_clk_div helper earlier as you suggested > in an earlier mail. I guess I could also keep the helper here, and then > fold it into the function in a later commit (*). > > Would that work for you ? Definitely. > *) Because having a helper for 3 lines of code when it is used only > once is not helpful IMHO, it only makes it harder to figure out what > the code is exactly doing when readin the code. At least it will reduce churn to just 1) introduce foo(); 2) do many changes with foo() being used; 3) drop foo() *if* it's not needed / makes little sense. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
