From: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 19:15:29 +0200 > 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. I agree with Oliver, these StuDlyCaPS names used in the spec should not be used in the driver, they are completely unreadable.
