On Thu, Dec 05, 2024 at 03:59:58PM +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: > On 05/12/2024 10:31, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 04, 2024 at 01:05:21PM +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: ... > > > #define MHZ(v) ((u32)((v) * 1000000U)) > > > > Missed HZ_PER_MHZ from previous patch? > > Yes, and no. I did leave the MHZ uses on purpose. I think the use of > HZ_PER_MHZ was fine in the calculations, but when having table-ish use of > MHZ, with hardcoded numbers, I found the MHZ() macro much nicer to read: > > case MHZ(1200): > > vs. > case 1200 * HZ_PER_MHZ: Had I talked about tables? :-) I was only commented the calculations. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
