On 19-Dec-24 10:53 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 12/18/24 10:16 PM, Ram Kumar Dwivedi wrote:
>> On 18-Dec-24 10:49 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>>> On 12/18/24 7:11 AM, Ram Kumar Dwivedi wrote:
>>>> + uint8_t val[4] = { NUM_RX_R1W0, NUM_TX_R0W1, NUM_RX_R1W1, NUM_TX_R1W1 };
>>>
>>> This array can be declared 'static const', isn't it?
>>
>> As this value is not modified in this function, we will declare it as const in next patchset
>
> Why only 'const'? Why not 'static const' as everyone else does for this
> type of arrays?
Hi Bart,
This function will be only called once during boot and "val" is a local variable, we don't see any advantage in making it static.
If you still recommend, i will add the static keyword in next patchset.
Thanks,
Ram.
> Thanks,
>
> Bart.
