Re: [NEW DRIVER V4 7/7] DA9058 REGULATOR driver

[Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>]

On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 05:29:13PM +0000, Opensource [Anthony Olech] wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Guenter Roeck [mailto:linux@roeck-us.net]
> > Sent: 15 April 2013 17:36
> > To: Opensource [Anthony Olech]
> > Cc: LKML
> > Subject: Re: [NEW DRIVER V4 7/7] DA9058 REGULATOR driver
> > 
> > On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 03:00:58PM +0000, Opensource [Anthony Olech]
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Guenter Roeck [mailto:linux@roeck-us.net]
> > > > Sent: 12 April 2013 14:32
> > > > To: Opensource [Anthony Olech]
> > > > Cc: Mark Brown; Liam Girdwood; Jean Delvare; Randy Dunlap; LKML;
> > > > David Dajun Chen
> > > > Subject: Re: [NEW DRIVER V4 7/7] DA9058 REGULATOR driver
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 02:05:28PM +0100, Anthony Olech wrote:
> > > > > This is the REGULATOR component driver of the Dialog DA9058 PMIC.
> > > > > This driver is just one component of the whole DA9058 PMIC driver.
> > > > > It depends on the CORE component driver of the DA9058 MFD.
> > > > >
> > > > > There are 6 warnings from scripts/checkpatch.pl, but since it
> > > > > seems to be complaining about variable names such as min_uV are in
> > > > > CamelCase, when it is obvious that they are not in CamelCase I have
> > ignored them.
> > > > >
> > > > ??? min_uV _is_ CamelCase ???
> > > >
> > > > Ok, maybe it is camelcasE, but you are splitting hairs here.
> > >
> > > it is not me splitting hairs, it is scripts/checkpatch.pl
> > >
> > Maybe you did not understand what I meant. Per your logic,
> > 
> > 	MicroVolt is CamelCase
> > 	uVolt is ???
> > 	uV is not CamelCase
> > 
> > By abbreviating CamelCase to camelCase to cC you make it, in your opinion,
> > acceptable.
> > 
> > If you want to declare CamelCase variables, just do it, but don't claim that they
> > are not really CamelCase.
> > 
> > Guenter
> 
> I always thought that camel case meant "changing from lower case to upper case the first 
> letter of each word and then joining the capitalized words together", so by that definition
> uV or mW are not camel case because "v" and "w" are not words!
> 
> Either way it seems that the algorithm in scripts/checkpatch.pl is wrong! and that was my point.
> 
Guess we'll have to agree to disagree here, as I happen to think that checkpatch
is perfectly right.

Guenter