On Sun, Jun 29, 2025 at 12:11 AM Lothar Rubusch <l.rubusch@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, Jun 28, 2025 at 6:08 PM Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: ... > > > > + axis_ctrl = ADXL345_INACT_X_EN | ADXL345_INACT_Y_EN | > > > > + ADXL345_INACT_Z_EN; > > > > > > Consider > > > axis_ctrl = > > > ADXL345_INACT_X_EN | ADXL345_INACT_Y_EN | ADXL345_INACT_Z_EN; > > > > > > (yes, I see that it's longer than 80, but it might worth doing it for the sake of > > > consistency with the previous suggestion). > > Hmm. I'd go longer rather than do that just because it looks really ugly. > > > > axis_ctrl = ADXL345_INACT_X_EN | ADXL345_INACT_Y_EN | ADXL345_INACT_Z_EN; > > > > I don't care that much as long as long lines are justified by readability. Here > > I think either Andy's suggestion or the all on one line are justified. > > > > Tomorrow I may have a different view :( > > > > As I’ve seen quite a bit of discussion around this. In fact, using > binary OR here might not even be necessary, since I can define > ADXL345_ACT_XYZ_EN and ADXL345_INACT_XYZ_EN directly and OR the fields > in the header. If you have no objections, I’ll likely prepare this > change for the next version. Actually I like your idea. This will be sustainable over style preference changes. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
