On 06/03/2016 07:03 PM, Ulrich Hecht wrote:
Thanks; I missed that every register is described twice.
Nevertheless, names often vary more or less subtly between your patch
and the specs, making it very hard to review. Some have letters added,
some have letters removed, and some are just plain confusing. For
instance, RCANFD_DCFG_* apparently does not describe, as one might
think, RSCFDnCFDCmDCFG, but RSCFDnCFDCmFDCFG. These names are, of
course, completely ridiculous, but inventing a new set makes things
even worse, IMO.
???
You suggest to use 'completely ridiculous' definitions in favor to
definitions that have a proper name space RCANFD_ ?
When there is a more readable way that maintains proper readable code
there's no reason to adopt crappy definitions just because some chip
designer has no clue how to design proper register names.
When there's some mapping from RSCFDnCFDCmFDCFG to RCANFD_DCFG_* this
could be mentioned in the comments.
But I'm totally against these blurry upper/lower case letter stuff for
register definitions.
Regards,
Oliver
At least for the bits, I'd stick with the names given in the
datasheet. They usually make a modicum of sense, and it makes it way
easier to search for them. It would also help if the bits were sorted
consistently.
CU
Uli
