On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 4:43 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. > > ... > > 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? oh... Sorry, I just got the wrong meaning maybe it should be revised like this, right?? ------------------------------------------------------------------- #define MT6370_REG_DEV_INFO 0x100 #define MT6370_REG_CHG_IRQ1 0x1C0 #define MT6370_REG_CHG_MASK1 0x1E0 #define MT6370_REG_MAXADDR 0x1FF // Move it to here #define MT6370_VENID_MASK GENMASK(7, 4) #define MT6370_NUM_IRQREGS 16 #define MT6370_USBC_I2CADDR 0x4E #define MT6370_MAX_ADDRLEN 2 // Rename ------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks! -- Best Regards, ChiaEn Wu
