> -----Original Message----- > From: Guenter Roeck [mailto:li...@roeck-us.net] > Sent: 16 April 2013 14:36 > To: Opensource [Anthony Olech] > Cc: LKML > Subject: Re: [NEW DRIVER V4 7/7] DA9058 REGULATOR driver > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 09:17:27AM +0000, Opensource [Anthony Olech] > wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Guenter Roeck [mailto:li...@roeck-us.net] > > > Sent: 15 April 2013 18:46 > > > To: Opensource [Anthony Olech] > > > Cc: LKML > > > Subject: Re: [NEW DRIVER V4 7/7] DA9058 REGULATOR driver > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 05:29:13PM +0000, Opensource [Anthony Olech] > > > wrote: > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Guenter Roeck [mailto:li...@roeck-us.net] > > > > > Sent: 15 April 2013 17:36 > > > > > To: Opensource [Anthony Olech] > > > > > Cc: LKML > > > > > Subject: Re: [NEW DRIVER V4 7/7] DA9058 REGULATOR driver > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 03:00:58PM +0000, Opensource [Anthony > > > > > Olech] > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > From: Guenter Roeck [mailto:li...@roeck-us.net] > > > > > > > Sent: 12 April 2013 14:32 > > > > > > > To: Opensource [Anthony Olech] > > > > > > > Cc: Mark Brown; Liam Girdwood; Jean Delvare; Randy Dunlap; > > > > > > > LKML; David Dajun Chen > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [NEW DRIVER V4 7/7] DA9058 REGULATOR driver > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 02:05:28PM +0100, Anthony Olech wrote: > > > > > > > > This is the REGULATOR component driver of the Dialog DA9058 > PMIC. > > > > > > > > This driver is just one component of the whole DA9058 PMIC > driver. > > > > > > > > It depends on the CORE component driver of the DA9058 MFD. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are 6 warnings from scripts/checkpatch.pl, but since > > > > > > > > it seems to be complaining about variable names such as > > > > > > > > min_uV are in CamelCase, when it is obvious that they are > > > > > > > > not in CamelCase I have > > > > > ignored them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ??? min_uV _is_ CamelCase ??? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok, maybe it is camelcasE, but you are splitting hairs here. > > > > > > > > > > > > it is not me splitting hairs, it is scripts/checkpatch.pl > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe you did not understand what I meant. Per your logic, > > > > > > > > > > MicroVolt is CamelCase > > > > > uVolt is ??? > > > > > uV is not CamelCase > > > > > > > > > > By abbreviating CamelCase to camelCase to cC you make it, in > > > > > your opinion, acceptable. > > > > > > > > > > If you want to declare CamelCase variables, just do it, but > > > > > don't claim that they are not really CamelCase. > > > > > > > > > > Guenter > > > > > > > > I always thought that camel case meant "changing from lower case > > > > to upper case the first letter of each word and then joining the > > > > capitalized words together", so by that definition uV or mW are > > > > not camel > > > case because "v" and "w" are not words! > > > > The definition of CamelCase From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia is: > > > > "CamelCase (camel case) is a term which refers to the practice of > > writing compound words where the first letter of an identifier is > > lowercase and the first letter of each subsequent concatenated word is > capitalized." > > > Maybe the rule should read "don't mix lowercase and uppercase letters in > variable names and defines" to prevent variable names such as cAmelcAse or > cameLcasE, which would be permitted with your logic :).
It is really good to have a definition that anyone can work with! > > > > Either way it seems that the algorithm in scripts/checkpatch.pl is > > > > wrong! and > > > that was my point. > > > > > > Guess we'll have to agree to disagree here, as I happen to think > > > that checkpatch is perfectly right. > > > Guenter > > > > Hi Guenter, > > > > I am quite happy to accept the algorithm in scripts/checkpatch.pl as > > the arbiter for correctly formed linux kernel variable names. > > > > On that basis "old_mV", "new_uA" etc are incorrectly formed variable names. > > Could you possibly suggest legal alternatives to "mA", "uV", "kW" ?? > > > I just changed it to lowercase in the ntc_thermistor driver. What you use is > really your call as long as it does not mix uppercase and lowercase letters. > > Guenter many thanks, I will do the same. Tony Olech -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/