On 05/12/2024 21:36, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
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.
I see your point now =)
Tomi
