Re: [PATCH][next] iio: adc: make read-only const array config static

[Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@intel.com>]

On Wed, Jul 15, 2026 at 01:22:32PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2026 at 08:08:10PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 14, 2026 at 05:50:12PM +0100, Colin Ian King wrote:

...

> > In all patches like this it's always a bikeshedding possible of moving static
> > data outside of a function. I have no strong opinion in these cases (when the
> > data solely used by a single function), but in general it might give different
> > readability experience (it's harder to notice static data in the local function
> > definition block). So I leave this exercise to the maintainers of the respective
> > pieces of the code.
> > 
> 
> It's an interesting point...
> 
> At one point Smatch didn't track static variables and it used to
> generate occasional false positives.  And it's like you say, those
> little "static" qualifiers are hard to spot in a wall of declaration
> text.  I've never considered moving the declarations out of the
> function scope but it might be a good idea?

Maybe, as I said, I have no strong opinion here. I am all ears to hear
what others think.

> But in this case since this data is const, the static vs not-static
> doesn't affect flow analysis or readability.

It doesn't affect flow analysis, but we also have David's point about
amount of data to be static may affect the code generation.

...

The main point I have is that stumbling over the 'static' in the definition
block might rise some additional questions and slow down the understanding of
the code (by reading).

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko