Re: [PATCH v3 07/14] iio: ltc2688: Simplify using devm_regulator_*get_enable()

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Sat, Aug 20, 2022 at 8:30 PM Matti Vaittinen
<mazziesaccount@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 8/20/22 19:09, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 20, 2022 at 4:45 PM Matti Vaittinen
> > <mazziesaccount@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> On 8/20/22 14:21, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 19 Aug 2022 22:19:17 +0300
> >>> Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

...

> >>> For the whole static / vs non static. My personal preference is not
> >>> to have the static marking but I don't care that much.
> >>
> >> I'd like to stick with the static here. I know this one particular array
> >> does not have much of a footprint - but I'd like to encourage the habit
> >> of considering the memory usage. This discussion serves as an example of
> >> how unknown the impact of making const data static is. I didn't know
> >> this myself until Sebastian educated me :)  Hence my strong preference
> >> on keeping this 'static' as an example for others who are as ignorant as
> >> I were ;) After all, having const data arrays static is quite an easy
> >> way of improving things - and it really does matter when there is many
> >> of arrays - or when they contain large data.
> >
> > But still the same comment about global scope of the variable is applied.
>
> I don't understand why you keep claiming the variable is global when it
> is not?

It is. The static keyword makes it global, but putting the entire
definition into the function is asking for troubles.

I guess some C standard chapter describes that in non-understandable language.

> > As I explained before, hiding global variables inside a function is a
> > bad code practice.
>
> I don't really get what you mean here. And I definitely don't see any
> improvement if we would really use a global variable instead of a local one.

The improvement is avoid hiding the global variable to the local namespace.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko