lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Jul]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 6/8] media: i2c: ds90ub953: Restructure clkout management
From
On 21/07/2023 13:29, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 01:30:37PM +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
>> Separate clkout calculations and register writes into two functions:
>> ub953_calc_clkout_params and ub953_write_clkout_regs, and add a struct
>> ub953_clkout_data that is used to store the clkout parameters.
>>
>> This simplifies the clkout management.
>
> ...
>
>> +struct ub953_clkout_data {
>> + u32 hs_div;
>> + u32 m;
>> + u32 n;
>
> I don't think it makes driver worse. The V4L2 UAPI has similar struct which is
> used widely, hence I see no issues in using u32_fract here.

I think it makes sense to use u32_fract in common code. My argument for
not using it here is:

- There is no actual functionality that u32_fract brings, so it's really
only about field naming
- m and n matches the terms in the HW documentation, making it easier to
compare the code and the docs
- This is private to the driver
- I'm (currently) the most likely person to edit the driver, and I would
have to check which one that numerator/denominator was again when
looking at this part of the code (but maybe I would learn eventually)

So, in my view, the change doesn't really have any pros but does have cons.

That said, it's not a biggie. If others chime in and say it's a good
idea to use u32_fract, I'm fine doing that change.

Tomi

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-07-21 15:25    [W:0.046 / U:0.276 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site