On Sat, Aug 20, 2022 at 4:45 PM Matti Vaittinen
<mazziesaccount@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 8/20/22 14:21, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 Aug 2022 22:19:17 +0300
> > Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...
> >> + static const char * const regulators[] = {"vcc", "iovcc"};
> > trivial - slight preference for
> > { "vcc", "iovcc" };
> >
> > This isn't as important as for numeric values as we get some readability
> > from the quotes but still nice to have.
>
> Right. I'll fix it.
And also make it a reversed xmas tree order.
> > For the whole static / vs non static. My personal preference is not
> > to have the static marking but I don't care that much.
>
> I'd like to stick with the static here. I know this one particular array
> does not have much of a footprint - but I'd like to encourage the habit
> of considering the memory usage. This discussion serves as an example of
> how unknown the impact of making const data static is. I didn't know
> this myself until Sebastian educated me :) Hence my strong preference
> on keeping this 'static' as an example for others who are as ignorant as
> I were ;) After all, having const data arrays static is quite an easy
> way of improving things - and it really does matter when there is many
> of arrays - or when they contain large data.
But still the same comment about global scope of the variable is applied.
As I explained before, hiding global variables inside a function is a
bad code practice.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
