Hi Jonathan, On 25.06.22 16:16, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 02:53:58 +0200 > Jakob Hauser <jahau@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 18.06.22 17:00, Jonathan Cameron wrote: >>> >>> We've been bitten in the past by naming choices like this, so please >>> use yas530 only and rely on comments or code that makes it obvious that >>> it applies to the yas532 as well. >> >> Hm, ok. It's harder to keep the overview. But I can imagine adding up >> names can get out of control. I'll change it. >> >> For functions and registers used by all variants, I'd keep yas5xx or >> YAS5XX respectively. I hope that's ok. > > I reserve the right to laugh at you if the next variant to come along > fits the wild card but not the registers that have been shared until then :) > > Otherwise, I'm fine with keeping the naming for those cases. Thanks for your reply. Reserving that right is fine :) It could turn out that way. For the time being and as long as possible, keeping the generic ya5xx naming for those cases makes it more distinguishable what's generally applicable and what's variant-specific. Kind regards, Jakob
