Just my 2 cents... On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 09:24:00AM +0000, Peter Horton wrote:
> >> + > >> +#define PEAK_PCI_MAP_SIZE (4 << 10) > > > > I find "0x4000" more readable. > > > > Maybe, but it'd be wrong, it's 0x1000 :). I write it that way to > indicate it's 4K. I'd say 0x1000 is more common. > > > >> +#define PEAK_PCI_CAN_CLOCK (8 * 1000 * 1000) > > > > Why not just "8000000"? Or even better (16000000 / 2) to make clear that > > it's half of the oscillator frequency. > > > > It's obviously 8 million. 8000000 is more difficult to read, is it > 80000000 or 8000000 or 800000? I agree with Peter here and I have seen such constructs throughout the kernel. As the compiler will make the same out of it anyway, I'd vote for the unambiguous way. > >> + > >> +static u8 peak_pci_can_read(struct sja1000_priv const *ctlr, int reg) > > > > "const struct sja1000_priv" please. > > > > It's easier to see where the "const" applies this way, you just read > from right to left. It makes the difference between "struct x * const" > and "struct x const *" more obvious. I think Wolfgang's proposal is pretty much standard in the kernel. Regards, Wolfram -- Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Socketcan-core mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/socketcan-core
