On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 04:23:54PM +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> On 21/07/2023 13:29, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 01:30:37PM +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
...
> > > +struct ub953_clkout_data {
> > > + u32 hs_div;
> > > + u32 m;
> > > + u32 n;
> >
> > I don't think it makes driver worse. The V4L2 UAPI has similar struct which is
> > used widely, hence I see no issues in using u32_fract here.
>
> I think it makes sense to use u32_fract in common code. My argument for not
> using it here is:
>
> - There is no actual functionality that u32_fract brings, so it's really
> only about field naming
> - m and n matches the terms in the HW documentation, making it easier to
> compare the code and the docs
> - This is private to the driver
> - I'm (currently) the most likely person to edit the driver, and I would
> have to check which one that numerator/denominator was again when looking at
> this part of the code (but maybe I would learn eventually)
>
> So, in my view, the change doesn't really have any pros but does have cons.
>
> That said, it's not a biggie. If others chime in and say it's a good idea to
> use u32_fract, I'm fine doing that change.
Thank you for a good summary of your point of view.
I agree that others, esp. maintainers, can decide
on how to proceed with this suggestion.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
