Mike A. Harris wrote:
I suppose that is fair enough. I'm trying to debug an annoying problem in the driver for some users having problems, and seeing hexadecimal registers everywhere instead of symbolic names is very frustrating.

Mike, I really can't imagine how symbolic names would help you if you don't have hardware docs. (Well, unless one uses names like BIT_7_IS_FOR_INTERLACE_BIT_6_IS_FOR_DOUBLESCAN_BITS_5_4_ARE....)

For me as a developer, if I have the choice between for example




I will certainly go for the first variant.

Datasheets usually are sorted by register number. Using the number instead of a name saves me from 1) remembering the symbolic name I or the datasheet gave the register ("Was that with '_' or without in the middle? Did I use caps?"), and 2) grepping BOTH the driver AND the datasheet (or my defs.h) every time I check or debug stuff.

Just my humble $.2


Thomas Winischhofer
thomas AT winischhofer DOT net
twini AT xfree86 DOT org

Devel mailing list

Reply via email to