On 2/15/24 11:21, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 10:35:11AM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>> On 2/15/24 08:02, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
>>> -#define KHZ    1000
>>> -#define MHZ(x) ((x) * KHZ * KHZ)
>>>    static const u32 brcmstb_rate_table[] = {
>>> -	MHZ(81),
>>> -	MHZ(108),
>>> -	MHZ(64),		/* Actually 64285715 for some chips */
>>> -	MHZ(48),
>>> +	81 * HZ_PER_MHZ,
>>> +	108 * HZ_PER_MHZ,
>>> +	64 * HZ_PER_MHZ,		/* Actually 64285715 for some chips */
>>> +	48 * HZ_PER_MHZ,
>>
>> The previous notation was IMHO more readable,
> 
> I tend to disagree as we read in plain text "frequency is 64 MHz",
> the patch follows natural language.
> 
>> can we meet in the middle and do:
>>
>> #define MHZ(x)	((x) * HZ_PER_MHZ
>>
>> and avoid touching the tables entirely?
> 
> I don't like the intermediate layer which hides the implementation of MHZ().
> What does it do exactly? You need to look at the internals, with the patch
> applied you immediately see that these are just constants.
> 

OK, I suppose today's color is blue for the bike shed.

Reviewed-by: Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@broadcom.com>
-- 
Florian