On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 10:30 AM ChiaEn Wu <peterwu.pub@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 4:00 PM Andy Shevchenko > <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: ... > > > +#define MT6370_REG_DEV_INFO 0x100 > > > +#define MT6370_REG_CHG_IRQ1 0x1C0 > > > +#define MT6370_REG_CHG_MASK1 0x1E0 > > > + > > > +#define MT6370_VENID_MASK GENMASK(7, 4) > > > + > > > +#define MT6370_NUM_IRQREGS 16 > > > +#define MT6370_USBC_I2CADDR 0x4E > > > > > +#define MT6370_REG_ADDRLEN 2 > > > +#define MT6370_REG_MAXADDR 0x1FF > > > > These two more logically to have near to other _REG_* definitions above. > > Hi Andy, > Thanks for your review. > Do you mean that we should move '#define MT6370_USBC_I2CADDR' and > '#define MT6370_REG_MAXADDR' after the line '#define > MT6370_REG_CHG_MASK1'? > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > #define MT6370_REG_DEV_INFO 0x100 > #define MT6370_REG_CHG_IRQ1 0x1C0 > #define MT6370_REG_CHG_MASK1 0x1E0 > #define MT6370_USBC_I2CADDR 0x4E > #define MT6370_REG_MAXADDR 0x1FF > > #define MT6370_VENID_MASK GENMASK(7, 4) > > #define MT6370_NUM_IRQREGS 16 > #define MT6370_REG_ADDRLEN 2 > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > Like this? You lost me. Namespace has a meaning, i.e. grouping items of a kind. In your proposal I don't see that. If REG_MAXADDR and REG_ADDRLEN are _not_ of the _REG_ kind as per above, why do they have this namespace in the first place? -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
