[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <WM!38a78b30daab0c24fd8c60ed9ccee608d25e37d2d9957594967a683b3de9826e80268c5657ee1f62d3d20947c8ad8230!@dg.advantech.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 10:24:30 -0800
From: "Ken.Lin" <ken.lin@...antech.com>
To: Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>,
Peter Meerwald-Stadler <pmeerw@...erw.net>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@....de>,
Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
Alison Schofield <amsfield22@...il.com>,
Gregor Boirie <gregor.boirie@...rot.com>,
Sanchayan Maity <maitysanchayan@...il.com>,
"linux-iio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/2] iio: pressure: mpl3115: do not rely on structure
field ordering
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Rosin [mailto:peda@...ntia.se]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2017 2:18 AM
> To: Peter Meerwald-Stadler
> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; Jonathan Cameron; Hartmut Knaack; Lars-
> Peter Clausen; Alison Schofield; Gregor Boirie; Sanchayan Maity; Ken.Lin; linux-
> iio@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] iio: pressure: mpl3115: do not rely on structure field
> ordering
>
> On 2017-02-01 10:57, Peter Meerwald-Stadler wrote:
> >>> - .info_mask_separate = BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_RAW),
> >>> BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_SCALE),
> >>> + .info_mask_separate = BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_RAW) |
> >>> BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_SCALE),
> >>> as originally intended
> >>
> >> I considered that option, but the code in mpl3115_read_raw (and
> >> mpl115_read_raw for that matter) return constants fro these values
> >> which to me indicated that they were not "separate" and as that would
> >> also be the change which replicated the exact behavior from before
> >> the regression I went with that. But I don't care either way, so I
> >> can re-spin if you want me to? (But don't blame me if that regresses
> >> in some other interesting way).
> >
> > no, all good; shared_by_type is the way to go I'd rather respin for
> > the not ORed comment in the patch
>
> Ok, but I think I'll wait a bit so that Ken Lin gets some time to verify that it
> actually solves the original problem. It should, but...
>
The patch test result looks good to me and functions well as before.
# ls /sys/bus/iio/devices/iio\:device1/
buffer current_timestamp_clock dev in_pressure_raw in_pressure_scale in_temp_raw in_temp_scale name of_node power scan_elements subsystem trigger uevent
# cat /sys/bus/iio/devices/iio\:device1/in_pressure_raw
403668
# cat /sys/bus/iio/devices/iio\:device1/in_pressure_scale
0.000250
# cat /sys/bus/iio/devices/iio\:device1/in_temp_scale
0.062500
# cat /sys/bus/iio/devices/iio\:device1/in_temp_raw
480
Thanks
> Cheers,
> peda
>
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by
> MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists