Olliver Schinagl <oli...@schinagl.nl> 於 2019年2月24日 週日 上午4:37寫道: > > On 23-02-2019 13:54, Axel Lin wrote: > >> I will not disagree that it may be extra work to look up the define > >> (especially if there is no tool tip or split view in the editor) but > >> reading the whole lot of code, with only the magic values, you still > >> have to look up the meaning of each magic value, have to guess which one > >> has the same meaning etc. > >> > >> Further more, I do believe far more people reading will find an define > >> to be more descriptive to read. Whoever needs to actually go in and > >> fix/change things. > > I disagree. > > The reason I sent this patch is because these defines reduce readability. > > I do care about readability, but in this case these defines make > > readability worsen. > Well this really is up to personal preference isn't it? As personally > find it much nicer to read without the magics :) If I actually have to > modify or go into the actual meaning, then yes, I will have to dig into > it a little deeper. But the overal code to a passer by, is still in my > opinion much more readable.
It's not about personal preference. The thing is your changes added unnecessary complexity as I pointed out. > > > > At the context of REGULATOR_LINEAR_RANGE, each fields has well known > > meaning. > > When I look at the table with values (I don't care if it's hex or decimal), > > it tells everything I need to know. > > I can easily check if any linear ranger cover other ranges. > > I can easily check if any gap between linar ranges, (probably due to > > reserved bits). > > I can easily count the number of entries in each range. > > I can easily calculate the min/max voltage of each range and double > > check with datasheet. > > i.e. If there are something wrong, it's eash to detect it. > > In any case, you seem like a smart person that reads and writes hex and > bits often enough. This is not true for everyone. I can just as easily > reverse your arguments of course, for example, 'each field has a well > known meaning' ... to whom? People that use these things daily, sure. > People who just need to double check something or modify something, not > so much. They have to look up the MACRO, the struct its in, compare it > to others, so as you can see, what is natural for you, is not true for > everyone. :) To judge the readability you still have to understand the meaning of fields of a REGULATOR_LINEAR_RANGE no matter using DEFINES or constant values. Once you understand the fields of REGULATOR_LINEAR_RANGE, you will know there is no readability issue with constant values in the table. > > Also, the general consensus is still to avoid magic values, and to stay > consistent with the rest and not make expceptions, it makes sense to > have defines instead of magic values. > > > > > When you change the values to DEFINES, I have to check the value of > > each define *one-by-one*. > > There is no benefit in this case. > > > > I don't mean adding DEFINES is wrong. Just in this case it does not > > help and actually has downside. > > I only remove AXP20X_xxx_START/END/STEPS defines, not all defines. > > > > BTW, just show you an example (from drivers/regulator/88pm8607.c) > > I don't think change all below values to DEFINES help in readability. > > static const unsigned int BUCK1_table[] = { > > 725000, 750000, 775000, 800000, 825000, 850000, 875000, > > 900000, > > 925000, 950000, 975000, 1000000, 1025000, 1050000, 1075000, > > 1100000, > > 1125000, 1150000, 1175000, 1200000, 1225000, 1250000, 1275000, > > 1300000, > > 1325000, 1350000, 1375000, 1400000, 1425000, 1450000, 1475000, > > 1500000, > > 0, 25000, 50000, 75000, 100000, 125000, 150000, > > 175000, > > 200000, 225000, 250000, 275000, 300000, 325000, 350000, > > 375000, > > 400000, 425000, 450000, 475000, 500000, 525000, 550000, > > 575000, > > 600000, 625000, 650000, 675000, 700000, 725000, 750000, > > 775000, > > }; > > Personally, I think this is a horrible table :p sure, I can guess that > these are voltages (based on the fact that it's a regulator table and I > am a little familiar here), but without knowing the context, I see a > bunch of voltages, from 0,725 to 1,5 appearantly in equal steps, but the > first question I ask, is the step always .25? I can't see, i'd have to > go over each value and compare them all. Quite cumbersome ;) > > And then, there is a nother row, which starts after the 1.5 but at 0 and > goes to 7.75. Are these two the same regulator? Why the overlap? Your guessing is wrong. This is *not* a linear range table. To judge the readability you had better really read the code first. Macro's and defines cannot help you regarding this. Axel