Messages in this thread | | | From | "Opensource [Anthony Olech]" <> | Subject | RE: [NEW DRIVER V4 7/7] DA9058 REGULATOR driver | Date | Tue, 16 Apr 2013 09:17:27 +0000 |
| |
> -----Original Message----- > From: Guenter Roeck [mailto:linux@roeck-us.net] > Sent: 15 April 2013 18:46 > To: Opensource [Anthony Olech] > Cc: LKML > Subject: Re: [NEW DRIVER V4 7/7] DA9058 REGULATOR driver > > On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 05:29:13PM +0000, Opensource [Anthony Olech] > wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Guenter Roeck [mailto:linux@roeck-us.net] > > > Sent: 15 April 2013 17:36 > > > To: Opensource [Anthony Olech] > > > Cc: LKML > > > Subject: Re: [NEW DRIVER V4 7/7] DA9058 REGULATOR driver > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 03:00:58PM +0000, Opensource [Anthony Olech] > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Guenter Roeck [mailto:linux@roeck-us.net] > > > > > Sent: 12 April 2013 14:32 > > > > > To: Opensource [Anthony Olech] > > > > > Cc: Mark Brown; Liam Girdwood; Jean Delvare; Randy Dunlap; LKML; > > > > > David Dajun Chen > > > > > Subject: Re: [NEW DRIVER V4 7/7] DA9058 REGULATOR driver > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 02:05:28PM +0100, Anthony Olech wrote: > > > > > > This is the REGULATOR component driver of the Dialog DA9058 PMIC. > > > > > > This driver is just one component of the whole DA9058 PMIC driver. > > > > > > It depends on the CORE component driver of the DA9058 MFD. > > > > > > > > > > > > There are 6 warnings from scripts/checkpatch.pl, but since it > > > > > > seems to be complaining about variable names such as min_uV > > > > > > are in CamelCase, when it is obvious that they are not in > > > > > > CamelCase I have > > > ignored them. > > > > > > > > > > > ??? min_uV _is_ CamelCase ??? > > > > > > > > > > Ok, maybe it is camelcasE, but you are splitting hairs here. > > > > > > > > it is not me splitting hairs, it is scripts/checkpatch.pl > > > > > > > Maybe you did not understand what I meant. Per your logic, > > > > > > MicroVolt is CamelCase > > > uVolt is ??? > > > uV is not CamelCase > > > > > > By abbreviating CamelCase to camelCase to cC you make it, in your > > > opinion, acceptable. > > > > > > If you want to declare CamelCase variables, just do it, but don't > > > claim that they are not really CamelCase. > > > > > > Guenter > > > > I always thought that camel case meant "changing from lower case to > > upper case the first letter of each word and then joining the > > capitalized words together", so by that definition uV or mW are not camel > case because "v" and "w" are not words!
The definition of CamelCase From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia is:
"CamelCase (camel case) is a term which refers to the practice of writing compound words where the first letter of an identifier is lowercase and the first letter of each subsequent concatenated word is capitalized."
> > Either way it seems that the algorithm in scripts/checkpatch.pl is wrong! and > that was my point. > > Guess we'll have to agree to disagree here, as I happen to think that > checkpatch is perfectly right. > Guenter
Hi Guenter,
I am quite happy to accept the algorithm in scripts/checkpatch.pl as the arbiter for correctly formed linux kernel variable names.
On that basis "old_mV", "new_uA" etc are incorrectly formed variable names. Could you possibly suggest legal alternatives to "mA", "uV", "kW" ??
Tony Olech
| |