On Mon, 2017-03-20 at 10:41 +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Mar 2017, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, 2017-03-17 at 10:55 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > > +enum {
> > > + CHT_WC_PWRSRC_IRQ = 0,
> > > + CHT_WC_THRM_IRQ,
> > > + CHT_WC_BCU_IRQ,
> > > + CHT_WC_ADC_IRQ,
> > > + CHT_WC_EXT_CHGR_IRQ,
> > > + CHT_WC_GPIO_IRQ,
> > > + /* There is no irq 6 */
> > > + CHT_WC_CRIT_IRQ = 7,
> >
> > I would prefer explicit over implicit (adding = N to each line), but
> > this is minor.
>
> No need. The C standard is clear on what is expected of enums.
I understand that, though I don't like gaps in enums. That's why I
prefer in such cases pure #define over enum (yes, I understand that enum
in many cases is better).
But this all matter of taste. So, I will not insist if it would be left
as it is now.
--
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Intel Finland Oy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
