On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 03:50:07PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > 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. Somebody can still use land line rotary phones, while others are on mobile ones, indeed. :-) Jokes aside, the second part of my remark was in regard to how to make the lines shorter in case somebody is so picky about 80 limit. > > if needed, in order to make code neater. That said, I slightly prefer > > bus_capacitance_pf over the shortened variant. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
