On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 4:22 AM, Jérémy Lefaure
wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 16:07:36 +0300
> Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>
>> > + {&gainctrl_lut_core0_rev0, ARRAY_SIZE(gainctrl_lut_core0_rev0),
>> > 26, 192,
>> > +32},
>>
>> For all such cases I would rather put on one line disregard che
On Mon, 02 Oct 2017 16:46:29 +0300
Kalle Valo wrote:
> We have a tree for wireless so usually it's better to submit wireless
> changes on their own but here I assume Dave will apply this to his tree.
> If not, please resubmit the wireless part in a separate patch.
Ok, I note that.
I'll wait Dave
On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 16:07:36 +0300
Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > + {&gainctrl_lut_core0_rev0, ARRAY_SIZE(gainctrl_lut_core0_rev0), 26,
> > 192,
> > +32},
>
> For all such cases I would rather put on one line disregard checkpatch
> warning for better readability.
I agree that it woul
Jérémy Lefaure writes:
> Using the ARRAY_SIZE macro improves the readability of the code. Also,
> it is not always useful to use a variable to store this constant
> calculated at compile time.
>
> Found with Coccinelle with the following semantic patch:
> @r depends on (org || report)@
> type T;
On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 10:30 PM, Jérémy Lefaure
wrote:
> Using the ARRAY_SIZE macro improves the readability of the code. Also,
> it is not always useful to use a variable to store this constant
> calculated at compile time.
>
> + {&gainctrl_lut_core0_rev0, ARRAY_SIZE(gainctrl_lut_core0_rev
Using the ARRAY_SIZE macro improves the readability of the code. Also,
it is not always useful to use a variable to store this constant
calculated at compile time.
Found with Coccinelle with the following semantic patch:
@r depends on (org || report)@
type T;
T[] E;
position p;
@@
(
(sizeof(E)@p
