Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
Date:   Sat, 7 May 2022 15:42:06 +0100
From:   Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Cc:     LI Qingwu <qing-wu.li@leica-geosystems.com.cn>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Tomas Melin <tomas.melin@vaisala.com>,
        devicetree <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-iio <linux-iio@vger.kernel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 3/5] iio: accel: sca3300: modified to support multi
 chips
Message-ID: <20220507154206.328e2877@jic23-huawei>
In-Reply-To: <CAHp75VcD-UpG=ppuE2Du2SsQK66MYdrwhXvjHksN5=gqcppYqA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20220504133612.604304-1-Qing-wu.Li@leica-geosystems.com.cn>
        <20220504133612.604304-4-Qing-wu.Li@leica-geosystems.com.cn>
        <CAHp75VeseZ2ChtbafmbgVavS4KvCvrQ4+XSRkeiJSyqr8__dSw@mail.gmail.com>
        <AM9PR06MB7844E8FE0EDF712C769271DAD7C39@AM9PR06MB7844.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>
        <CAHp75VfEK_TXXA3NdGgjis7duHgoDo4aSOZntdO0wEGLw0sQ7g@mail.gmail.com>
        <AM9PR06MB7844C01CA580F046FA570B43D7C29@AM9PR06MB7844.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>
        <CAHp75VcD-UpG=ppuE2Du2SsQK66MYdrwhXvjHksN5=gqcppYqA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 5 May 2022 20:01:22 +0200
Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 4:12 PM LI Qingwu
> <qing-wu.li@leica-geosystems.com.cn> wrote:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 4, 2022 10:39 PM
> > > On Wed, May 4, 2022 at 4:35 PM LI Qingwu
> > > <qing-wu.li@leica-geosystems.com.cn> wrote: =20
> > > > > From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 4, 2022 10:20 PM On Wed, May 4, 2022 at 3:36=
 PM
> > > > > LI Qingwu <Qing-wu.Li@leica-geosystems.com.cn> wrote: =20
>=20
> ...
>=20
> > > > > > +struct sca3300_chip_info {
> > > > > > +       const struct iio_chan_spec *channels;
> > > > > > +       const int (*accel_scale_table)[2];
> > > > > > +       const int *accel_scale_modes_map;
> > > > > > +       const unsigned long *scan_masks;
> > > > > > +       const int *avail_modes_table;
> > > > > > +       const int *freq_modes_map;
> > > > > > +       const int *freq_table;
> > > > > > +       const u8 num_accel_scales;
> > > > > > +       const u8 num_avail_modes;
> > > > > > +       const u8 num_channels;
> > > > > > +       const u8 num_freqs;
> > > > > > +       const u8 chip_id; =20
> > > > >
> > > > > Why do you have const qualifier on all members?  The last one is
> > > > > understandable, but the rest, esp. pointers should be justified. =
=20
> > > > Because I thought it was static and has fix value for each chip, un=
acceptable =20
> > > for you?
> > >
> > > But why const qualifier? What is the point of it for example for u8 m=
embers if
> > > the entire object is qualified as const below in the same patch?
> > >
> > > On top of that, please explain what in your opinion the "const ...
> > > *foo" gives us, and what we will lose if we remove the "const" part o=
ut of them. =20
> >
> > Ah, you are right, those const are unnecessary for nonpointer members.
> > for the pointers, the contexts that the pointer points to are still wri=
table.
> > what about if I remove all the const from nonpointer and keep it for th=
e pointers?
> > Like=EF=BC=9A
> > const struct iio_chan_spec *channels;
> > const int (*accel_scale_table)[2];
> > const int (*incli_scale_table)[2];
> > const int *accel_scale_modes_map;
> > const int *incli_scale_modes_map;
> > const unsigned long *scan_masks;
> > const int *avail_modes_table;
> > const int *freq_modes_map;
> > const int *freq_table;
> > const char *name;
> > u8 num_accel_scales;
> > u8 num_incli_scales;
> > u8 num_avail_modes;
> > u8 num_channels;
> > u8 num_freqs;
> > u8 chip_id;
> > bool angle; =20
>=20
> It's better, but you still need to justify the rest with explanation
> in the commit message.
> And I leave this to maintainers to say if the const:s are needed or not.
Where they are being set to point to
static const int array[]=20
then to my mind it makes sense to have them as const as makes it nice and o=
bvious
what is going on.

Jonathan

>=20
> > > > > > +       const char *name;
> > > > > > +}; =20
>=20