On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 4:43 PM Andy Shevchenko
[off-list ref] wrote:

...

quoted

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.

...

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?

oh... Sorry, I just got the wrong meaning
maybe it should be revised like this, right??
-------------------------------------------------------------------
#define MT6370_REG_DEV_INFO    0x100
#define MT6370_REG_CHG_IRQ1    0x1C0
#define MT6370_REG_CHG_MASK1   0x1E0
#define MT6370_REG_MAXADDR     0x1FF // Move it to here

#define MT6370_VENID_MASK      GENMASK(7, 4)

#define MT6370_NUM_IRQREGS     16
#define MT6370_USBC_I2CADDR    0x4E

#define MT6370_MAX_ADDRLEN     2    // Rename
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks!

-- 
Best Regards,
ChiaEn Wu