On 26/09/2024 14:18, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 08:45:47AM +0000, Michael Wu wrote: >>> On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 12:16:10PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >>>> On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 04:04:30PM +0800, Michael Wu wrote: > > ... > >>>>> + * @bus_loading: for high speed mode, the bus loading affects the high >>> and low >>>>> + * pulse width of SCL >>>> >>>> This is bad naming, better is bus_capacitance. >>> >>> Even more specific bus_capacitance_pf as we usually add physical units to the >>> variable names, so we immediately understand from the code the order of >>> numbers and their physical meanings. >> >> Sounds good. However, I think the length of "bus_capacitance_pf" is a bit >> long, we may often encounter the limit of more than 80 characters in a >> line when coding. I'll rename it to "bus_cap_pf". > > Limit had been relaxed to 100. I still think we may use temporary variables, Just to be clear, because you encourage reformatting it to 100: You mix coding style with checkpatch. Checkpatch does not define coding style. Coding style doc defines it. Limit is 80, unless growing to 100 improves readability. > if needed, in order to make code neater. That said, I slightly prefer > bus_capacitance_pf over the shortened variant. > Best regards, Krzysztof
