Re: [PATCH 21/22] rtw89: Replace comments with C99 initializers

[Kalle Valo <kvalo@kernel.org>]

Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net> writes:

> On 3/26/22 11:59, Benjamin Stürz wrote:
>> This replaces comments with C99's designated
>> initializers because the kernel supports them now.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Benjamin Stürz <benni@stuerz.xyz>
>> ---
>>   drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/coex.c | 40 +++++++++++------------
>>   1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/coex.c b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/coex.c
>> index 684583955511..3c83a0bfb120 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/coex.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/coex.c
>> @@ -97,26 +97,26 @@ static const struct rtw89_btc_fbtc_slot s_def[] = {
>>   };
>>     static const u32 cxtbl[] = {
>> -	0xffffffff, /* 0 */
>> -	0xaaaaaaaa, /* 1 */
>> -	0x55555555, /* 2 */
>> -	0x66555555, /* 3 */
>> -	0x66556655, /* 4 */
>> -	0x5a5a5a5a, /* 5 */
>> -	0x5a5a5aaa, /* 6 */
>> -	0xaa5a5a5a, /* 7 */
>> -	0x6a5a5a5a, /* 8 */
>> -	0x6a5a5aaa, /* 9 */
>> -	0x6a5a6a5a, /* 10 */
>> -	0x6a5a6aaa, /* 11 */
>> -	0x6afa5afa, /* 12 */
>> -	0xaaaa5aaa, /* 13 */
>> -	0xaaffffaa, /* 14 */
>> -	0xaa5555aa, /* 15 */
>> -	0xfafafafa, /* 16 */
>> -	0xffffddff, /* 17 */
>> -	0xdaffdaff, /* 18 */
>> -	0xfafadafa  /* 19 */
>> +	[0]  = 0xffffffff,
>> +	[1]  = 0xaaaaaaaa,
>> +	[2]  = 0x55555555,
>> +	[3]  = 0x66555555,
>> +	[4]  = 0x66556655,
>> +	[5]  = 0x5a5a5a5a,
>> +	[6]  = 0x5a5a5aaa,
>> +	[7]  = 0xaa5a5a5a,
>> +	[8]  = 0x6a5a5a5a,
>> +	[9]  = 0x6a5a5aaa,
>> +	[10] = 0x6a5a6a5a,
>> +	[11] = 0x6a5a6aaa,
>> +	[12] = 0x6afa5afa,
>> +	[13] = 0xaaaa5aaa,
>> +	[14] = 0xaaffffaa,
>> +	[15] = 0xaa5555aa,
>> +	[16] = 0xfafafafa,
>> +	[17] = 0xffffddff,
>> +	[18] = 0xdaffdaff,
>> +	[19] = 0xfafadafa
>>   };
>>     struct rtw89_btc_btf_tlv {
>
>
> Is this change really necessary? Yes, the entries must be ordered;
> however, the comment carries that information at very few extra
> characters. To me, this patch looks like unneeded source churn.

One small benefit I see is to avoid the comment index being wrong and
there would be no way to catch that. But otherwise I don't have any
opinion about this.

-- 
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/

https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches