On Wed May 17, 2023 at 3:51 PM CEST, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > 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. I was trying to convey the fact that 0x31 was representing TPS6594_REG_GPIO1_CONF address. This way when looking at TPS6594_REG_GPIOX_CONF(...), one will better understand that this macro is just about offsetting from the first GPIO_CONF register. > 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. I did not know that. I will revert this change for next version then. Thanks again for your time. Best regards, -- Esteban Blanc BayLibre
