Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] pinctrl: tps6594: Add driver for TPS6594 pinctrl and GPIOs

[Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 12:58 PM Esteban Blanc <eblanc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue May 16, 2023 at 6:48 PM CEST, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 4:05 PM Esteban Blanc <eblanc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Fri May 12, 2023 at 7:07 PM CEST,  wrote:
> > > > Fri, May 12, 2023 at 04:17:54PM +0200, Esteban Blanc kirjoitti:

...

> > > > > -#define TPS6594_REG_GPIOX_CONF(gpio_inst)          (0x31 + (gpio_inst))
> > > > > +#define TPS6594_REG_GPIO1_CONF                             0x31
> > > > > +#define TPS6594_REG_GPIOX_CONF(gpio_inst)  (TPS6594_REG_GPIO1_CONF + (gpio_inst))
> > > >
> > > > Why? The original code with parameter 0 will issue the same.
> > >
> > > I felt that replacing 0x31 with a constant would make the computation
> > > in TPS6594_REG_GPIOX_CONFIG more understandable. What do you think?
> >
> > The question is why that register is so special that you need to have
> > it as a constant explicitly?
>
> It is not special, it's just the first one of the serie of config
> registers. I felt like just having 0x31 without context was a bit weird

I'm not sure I understand what 'context' you are talking about.
This is pretty normal to have two kind of definitions (depending on the case):
1/

  #define FOO_1 ...
  #define FOO_2 ...

and so on

2/

  #define FOO(x)  (... (x) ...)


Having a mix of them seems quite unusual.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko