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

[Colin King (gmail)]

On 15/07/2026 14:32, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> 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.

For small arrays it's a moot point if this type of change is useful, so
I'm OK if it's not accepted. I appreciate the feedback.

Colin

> > 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).

Attachment: OpenPGP_0x68C287DFC6A80226.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature