Re: [PATCH v6 3/3] counter: microchip-tcb-capture: Add capture extensions for registers RA/RB

[William Breathitt Gray]

On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 11:03:17AM +0100, Csókás Bence wrote:
> On 2025. 03. 04. 8:47, William Breathitt Gray wrote:
> > One final comment: is RA/RB the best way to differentiate these? One of
> > the benefits of abstraction layers is that users won't need to be
> > concerned about the hardware details, and naming the capture values
> > after their respective general register hardware names feels somewhat
> > antithetic to that end.
> > 
> > I imagine there are better ways to refer to these that would communicate
> > their relationship better, such as "primary capture" and "secondary
> > capture". However at that point capture0 and capture1 would seem
> > obvious enough, in which case you might not even need to expose these to
> > userspace at all.
> 
> Hmm. Well, RA and RB is what it says in the datasheet, and since we don't do
> much processing on their value, I'd say we're still closely coupled to the
> hardware. So, if one wants to understand what they do, they will have to
> read the datasheet anyways in which case I think it's best to be consistent
> with it naming-wise.

All right, let's keep it as RA and RA then.

William Breathitt Gray

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature