On 8/20/22 19:09, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
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.
can do.
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.
I don't understand why you keep claiming the variable is global when it
is not?
As I explained before, hiding global variables inside a function is a
bad code practice.
I don't really get what you mean here. And I definitely don't see any
improvement if we would really use a global variable instead of a local one.
--Matti
--
Matti Vaittinen
Linux kernel developer at ROHM Semiconductors
Oulu Finland
~~ When things go utterly wrong vim users can always type :help! ~~
Discuss - Estimate - Plan - Report and finally accomplish this:
void do_work(int time) __attribute__ ((const));
