Hi Andy,
On 19/04/2022 10:21, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 10:38 AM Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 19. 04. 22, 9:29, Yu Tu wrote:
On 2022/4/18 20:09, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 8:50 AM Yu Tu <yu.tu@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...
+struct meson_uart_data {
+ bool has_xtal_div2;
I would prefer to see this as an unsigned int and with a less
particular name, e.g. xtal_div would suffice.
I don't have a problem with your suggestion.Let's see What Neil has to say.
Actually why uint provided it's a boolean value? Or do you mean to store
the divisor directly in this member, Andy?
Yes I was thinking to provide the value and then always provide the
private data. In such cases we don't need an additional condition.
Actually, the original boolean "has_xtal_div2" is right because it encodes
if the HW has an internal /2 divider for the XTAL clock input path.
The HW historically has a /3 divider on the same path, and new HW now has both.
So the boolean indicates if the /2 divider is present so it can be used.
So I'm in favour of keeping the boolean type.
For the naming, it seems appropriate for me.
Neil
