On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 10:30 AM ChiaEn Wu [off-list ref] wrote:

On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 4:00 PM Andy Shevchenko
[off-list ref] wrote:

...

quoted

quoted

+#define MT6370_REG_DEV_INFO    0x100
+#define MT6370_REG_CHG_IRQ1    0x1C0
+#define MT6370_REG_CHG_MASK1   0x1E0
+
+#define MT6370_VENID_MASK      GENMASK(7, 4)
+
+#define MT6370_NUM_IRQREGS     16
+#define MT6370_USBC_I2CADDR    0x4E

quoted

+#define MT6370_REG_ADDRLEN     2
+#define MT6370_REG_MAXADDR     0x1FF

These two more logically to have near to other _REG_* definitions above.

Hi Andy,
Thanks for your review.
Do you mean that we should move '#define MT6370_USBC_I2CADDR' and
'#define MT6370_REG_MAXADDR' after the line '#define
MT6370_REG_CHG_MASK1'?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
#define MT6370_REG_DEV_INFO    0x100
#define MT6370_REG_CHG_IRQ1    0x1C0
#define MT6370_REG_CHG_MASK1   0x1E0
#define MT6370_USBC_I2CADDR    0x4E
#define MT6370_REG_MAXADDR     0x1FF

#define MT6370_VENID_MASK      GENMASK(7, 4)

#define MT6370_NUM_IRQREGS     16
#define MT6370_REG_ADDRLEN     2
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Like this?

You lost me. Namespace has a meaning, i.e. grouping items of a kind.
In your proposal I don't see that. If REG_MAXADDR and REG_ADDRLEN are
_not_ of the _REG_ kind as per above, why do they have this namespace
in the first place?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko