On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 10:30:15 +0300 Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. > Agreed. Jonathan >
