Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <cover.1660934107.git.mazziesaccount@gmail.com>
 <a29493f594c84b3bd852e462bbd3e591a8575a27.1660934107.git.mazziesaccount@gmail.com>
 <20220820122120.57dddcab@jic23-huawei> <412c5d22-d59b-9191-80dd-e3ca11360bc4@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <412c5d22-d59b-9191-80dd-e3ca11360bc4@gmail.com>
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 20 Aug 2022 19:09:03 +0300
Message-ID: <CAHp75VdoKtc2QqFcDuJ00KBz6mjg0fnM_WhyVqhCmDVo_3K6kg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 07/14] iio: ltc2688: Simplify using devm_regulator_*get_enable()
To:     Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com>
Cc:     Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>,
        Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@fi.rohmeurope.com>,
        =?UTF-8?B?TnVubyBTw6E=?= <nuno.sa@analog.com>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>,
        linux-iio <linux-iio@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Aug 20, 2022 at 4:45 PM Matti Vaittinen
<mazziesaccount@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/20/22 14:21, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 Aug 2022 22:19:17 +0300
> > Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com> wrote:

...

> >> +    static const char * const regulators[] = {"vcc", "iovcc"};
> > trivial - slight preference for
> >   { "vcc", "iovcc" };
> >
> > This isn't as important as for numeric values as we get some readability
> > from the quotes but still nice to have.
>
> Right. I'll fix it.

And also make it a reversed xmas tree order.

> > For the whole static / vs non static. My personal preference is not
> > to have the static marking but I don't care that much.
>
> I'd like to stick with the static here. I know this one particular array
> does not have much of a footprint - but I'd like to encourage the habit
> of considering the memory usage. This discussion serves as an example of
> how unknown the impact of making const data static is. I didn't know
> this myself until Sebastian educated me :)  Hence my strong preference
> on keeping this 'static' as an example for others who are as ignorant as
> I were ;) After all, having const data arrays static is quite an easy
> way of improving things - and it really does matter when there is many
> of arrays - or when they contain large data.

But still the same comment about global scope of the variable is applied.

As I explained before, hiding global variables inside a function is a
bad code practice.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko