On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 1:55 AM Marek Vasut <marex@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On 3/10/22 15:25, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 01:34:00AM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: ... > >> Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> > >> Cc: Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@xxxxxxx> > >> Cc: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > You may consider using --cc parameter in `git send-email` to avoid this noise > > in the commit messages. > > This is deliberate so I can keep track of who to CC on which patch. You may add the Link tag to lore (which `b4` tool can do automatically), so you can always access the email from the archives and track this down. No need to have this in each of the commit messages. ... > >> - .realbits = 12, \ > >> + .realbits = (_realbits), \ > >> .storagebits = 16, \ > > > > This seems inconsistent a bit. What if the next chip wants to have more than > > 16 bits in realbits? > > When such a chip exists, this can be parametrized as well. Yes, My point is that it's error prone. ... > > I see two options: > > 1) add static assert to make sure realbits <= storagebits; > > Does static_assert work in array of structures (I don't think it does) ? You can check, but IIRC some of the macros have it. Don't remember the details, though. > > 2) make it also configurable. > > That would be unnecessary duplication, this patch is trying to > DEduplicate the driver code, not REduplicate it differently. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
