Messages in this thread | | | From | Andy Shevchenko <> | Date | Sat, 20 Aug 2022 19:09:03 +0300 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 07/14] iio: ltc2688: Simplify using devm_regulator_*get_enable() |
| |
On Sat, Aug 20, 2022 at 4:45 PM Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com> wrote: > On 8/20/22 14:21, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > On Fri, 19 Aug 2022 22:19:17 +0300 > > Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com> wrote:
...
> >> + static const char * const regulators[] = {"vcc", "iovcc"}; > > trivial - slight preference for > > { "vcc", "iovcc" }; > > > > This isn't as important as for numeric values as we get some readability > > from the quotes but still nice to have. > > Right. I'll fix it.
And also make it a reversed xmas tree order.
> > For the whole static / vs non static. My personal preference is not > > to have the static marking but I don't care that much. > > I'd like to stick with the static here. I know this one particular array > does not have much of a footprint - but I'd like to encourage the habit > of considering the memory usage. This discussion serves as an example of > how unknown the impact of making const data static is. I didn't know > this myself until Sebastian educated me :) Hence my strong preference > on keeping this 'static' as an example for others who are as ignorant as > I were ;) After all, having const data arrays static is quite an easy > way of improving things - and it really does matter when there is many > of arrays - or when they contain large data.
But still the same comment about global scope of the variable is applied.
As I explained before, hiding global variables inside a function is a bad code practice.
-- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
| |