On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 12:58 PM Esteban Blanc <eblanc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue May 16, 2023 at 6:48 PM CEST, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 4:05 PM Esteban Blanc <eblanc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Fri May 12, 2023 at 7:07 PM CEST, wrote: > > > > Fri, May 12, 2023 at 04:17:54PM +0200, Esteban Blanc kirjoitti: ... > > > > > -#define TPS6594_REG_GPIOX_CONF(gpio_inst) (0x31 + (gpio_inst)) > > > > > +#define TPS6594_REG_GPIO1_CONF 0x31 > > > > > +#define TPS6594_REG_GPIOX_CONF(gpio_inst) (TPS6594_REG_GPIO1_CONF + (gpio_inst)) > > > > > > > > Why? The original code with parameter 0 will issue the same. > > > > > > I felt that replacing 0x31 with a constant would make the computation > > > in TPS6594_REG_GPIOX_CONFIG more understandable. What do you think? > > > > The question is why that register is so special that you need to have > > it as a constant explicitly? > > It is not special, it's just the first one of the serie of config > registers. I felt like just having 0x31 without context was a bit weird I'm not sure I understand what 'context' you are talking about. This is pretty normal to have two kind of definitions (depending on the case): 1/ #define FOO_1 ... #define FOO_2 ... and so on 2/ #define FOO(x) (... (x) ...) Having a mix of them seems quite unusual. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
