On Fri Jan 16, 2026 at 2:53 PM CET, Gary Guo wrote: > On Fri Jan 16, 2026 at 1:38 PM GMT, Daniel Almeida wrote: >> >>>>> >>>>> Is there any reason why you replace the UPPERCASE register names with >>>>> CamelCase ones? >>>>> >>>>> I was under the impression that we want to use UPPERCASE for register >>>>> names. Like in nova >>>>> >>>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/gpu/nova-core/regs.rs >>>> >>>> Not really. UPPERCASE for non-const items will trigger the linter. The Nova >>>> people chose to #[allow] this to align with OpenRM and, IIRC from the LPC >>>> discussions, their registers are automatically generated from some internal >>>> docs. >>>> >>>> We have only a few, we can simply convert them to CamelCase. >>> >>> Frankly, register names do look nicer in UPPER_CASE, especially that >>> they're in >>> many cases, packed with acronyms. >>> >>> Best, >>> Gary >>> >> >> I don’t have an opinion here, to be honest. I think CamelCase does make it >> easier on the eyes since our register names look quite simple,
I think you want to go with what your datasheets do, it is much easier for people if names are consistent. > > You're on the lucky side! Most hardware don't enjoy that, especially if > you want to match register names with the ones documented on the datasheet. > >> specially when >> compared to Nova. However, I can switch to UPPER_CASE and add an >> #![allow(non_camel_case_types)] if more people chime in. > > I wonder if we should just such allow `non_camel_case_types` to the register > macro? I don't have an opinion on whether we want to enforce using UPPER_CASE, > but at least I think we should allow it. I fully agree here. I would not enforce it either, but given that the absolute majority of datasheets uses UPPER_CASE for register names, we should allow it in the register!() macro.
