On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 11:06 AM ChiaEn Wu <peterwu.pub@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 4:43 PM Andy Shevchenko > <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: ... > > > > > +#define MT6370_REG_DEV_INFO 0x100 > > > > > +#define MT6370_REG_CHG_IRQ1 0x1C0 > > > > > +#define MT6370_REG_CHG_MASK1 0x1E0 > > > > > + > > > > > +#define MT6370_VENID_MASK GENMASK(7, 4) > > > > > + > > > > > +#define MT6370_NUM_IRQREGS 16 > > > > > +#define MT6370_USBC_I2CADDR 0x4E > > > > > > > > > +#define MT6370_REG_ADDRLEN 2 > > > > > +#define MT6370_REG_MAXADDR 0x1FF > > > > > > > > These two more logically to have near to other _REG_* definitions above. ... > > You lost me. Namespace has a meaning, i.e. grouping items of a kind. > > In your proposal I don't see that. If REG_MAXADDR and REG_ADDRLEN are > > _not_ of the _REG_ kind as per above, why do they have this namespace > > in the first place? > oh... Sorry, I just got the wrong meaning > maybe it should be revised like this, right?? I don't know. I am not an author of the code, I do not have access (and don't want to) to the hardware datasheets, all up to you. From the style perspective below looks good. > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > #define MT6370_REG_DEV_INFO 0x100 > #define MT6370_REG_CHG_IRQ1 0x1C0 > #define MT6370_REG_CHG_MASK1 0x1E0 > #define MT6370_REG_MAXADDR 0x1FF // Move it to here > > #define MT6370_VENID_MASK GENMASK(7, 4) > > #define MT6370_NUM_IRQREGS 16 > #define MT6370_USBC_I2CADDR 0x4E > > #define MT6370_MAX_ADDRLEN 2 // Rename -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
