RE: [PATCH 21/22] rtw89: Replace comments with C99 initializers

[David Laight <David.Laight@xxxxxxxxxx>]

From: Kalle Valo
> Sent: 28 March 2022 10:29
> 
> Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
> > On 3/26/22 11:59, Benjamin Stürz wrote:
> >> This replaces comments with C99's designated
> >> initializers because the kernel supports them now.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Benjamin Stürz <benni@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >>   drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/coex.c | 40 +++++++++++------------
> >>   1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/coex.c b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/coex.c
> >> index 684583955511..3c83a0bfb120 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/coex.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/coex.c
> >> @@ -97,26 +97,26 @@ static const struct rtw89_btc_fbtc_slot s_def[] = {
> >>   };
> >>     static const u32 cxtbl[] = {
> >> -	0xffffffff, /* 0 */
> >> -	0xaaaaaaaa, /* 1 */
> >> -	0x55555555, /* 2 */
> >> -	0x66555555, /* 3 */
> >> -	0x66556655, /* 4 */
> >> -	0x5a5a5a5a, /* 5 */
> >> -	0x5a5a5aaa, /* 6 */
> >> -	0xaa5a5a5a, /* 7 */
> >> -	0x6a5a5a5a, /* 8 */
> >> -	0x6a5a5aaa, /* 9 */
> >> -	0x6a5a6a5a, /* 10 */
> >> -	0x6a5a6aaa, /* 11 */
> >> -	0x6afa5afa, /* 12 */
> >> -	0xaaaa5aaa, /* 13 */
> >> -	0xaaffffaa, /* 14 */
> >> -	0xaa5555aa, /* 15 */
> >> -	0xfafafafa, /* 16 */
> >> -	0xffffddff, /* 17 */
> >> -	0xdaffdaff, /* 18 */
> >> -	0xfafadafa  /* 19 */
> >> +	[0]  = 0xffffffff,
> >> +	[1]  = 0xaaaaaaaa,
> >> +	[2]  = 0x55555555,
> >> +	[3]  = 0x66555555,
> >> +	[4]  = 0x66556655,
> >> +	[5]  = 0x5a5a5a5a,
> >> +	[6]  = 0x5a5a5aaa,
> >> +	[7]  = 0xaa5a5a5a,
> >> +	[8]  = 0x6a5a5a5a,
> >> +	[9]  = 0x6a5a5aaa,
> >> +	[10] = 0x6a5a6a5a,
> >> +	[11] = 0x6a5a6aaa,
> >> +	[12] = 0x6afa5afa,
> >> +	[13] = 0xaaaa5aaa,
> >> +	[14] = 0xaaffffaa,
> >> +	[15] = 0xaa5555aa,
> >> +	[16] = 0xfafafafa,
> >> +	[17] = 0xffffddff,
> >> +	[18] = 0xdaffdaff,
> >> +	[19] = 0xfafadafa
> >>   };
> >>     struct rtw89_btc_btf_tlv {
> >
> >
> > Is this change really necessary? Yes, the entries must be ordered;
> > however, the comment carries that information at very few extra
> > characters. To me, this patch looks like unneeded source churn.
> 
> One small benefit I see is to avoid the comment index being wrong and
> there would be no way to catch that. But otherwise I don't have any
> opinion about this.

If the [nn] are wrong the effect is probably worse.
You really don't want a gap!

Doesn't seem worth using C99 initialisers unless they are
#defines or enum values.

	David

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)