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

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

On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 09:17:27AM +0000, Opensource [Anthony Olech] wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Guenter Roeck [mailto:linux@roeck-us.net]
> > Sent: 15 April 2013 18:46
> > To: Opensource [Anthony Olech]
> > Cc: LKML
> > Subject: Re: [NEW DRIVER V4 7/7] DA9058 REGULATOR driver
> > 
> > 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!
> 
> The definition of CamelCase From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia is:
> 
> "CamelCase (camel case) is a term which refers to the practice of writing
> compound words where the first letter of an identifier is lowercase and the
> first letter of each subsequent concatenated word is capitalized."
> 
Maybe the rule should read "don't mix lowercase and uppercase letters in
variable names and defines" to prevent variable names such as cAmelcAse or
cameLcasE, which would be permitted with your logic :).

> > > 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
> 
> Hi Guenter,
> 
> I am quite happy to accept the algorithm in scripts/checkpatch.pl as the
> arbiter for correctly formed linux kernel variable names.
> 
> On that basis "old_mV", "new_uA" etc are incorrectly formed variable names.
> Could you possibly suggest legal alternatives to "mA", "uV", "kW" ??
> 
I just changed it to lowercase in the ntc_thermistor driver. What you use is
really your call as long as it does not mix uppercase and lowercase letters.

Guenter