[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <eb6ce47a-ab87-8a98-7ffe-b8cc50f8a549@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2022 14:02:08 +0300
From: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>,
Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Nikita Yushchenko <nikita.yoush@...entembedded.com>,
Dmitry Rokosov <DDRokosov@...rdevices.ru>,
Jagath Jog J <jagathjog1996@...il.com>,
Cosmin Tanislav <demonsingur@...il.com>,
linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] iio: accel: Support Kionix/ROHM KX022A
accelerometer
On 10/21/22 13:49, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 10:10:08AM +0300, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
>> On 10/20/22 17:34, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 02:37:15PM +0300, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
>
> ...
>
>>>> + ret = regmap_bulk_read(data->regmap, chan->address, &data->buffer,
>>>> + sizeof(__le16));
>>>> + if (ret)
>>>> + return ret;
>>>> +
>>>> + *val = le16_to_cpu(data->buffer[0]);
>>>
>>> 'p'-variant of the above would look better
>>>
>>> *val = le16_to_cpup(data->buffer);
>>>
>>> since it will be the same as above address without any additional arithmetics.
>>>
>>
>> I guess there is no significant performance difference? To my eye the
>> le16_to_cpu(data->buffer[0]) is much more clear. I see right from the call
>> that we have an array here and use the first member. If there is no obvious
>> technical merit for using le16_to_cpup(data->buffer) over
>> le16_to_cpu(data->buffer[0]), then I do really prefer the latter for
>> clarity.
>
> Then you probably wanted to have &data->buffer[0] as a parameter to
> regmap_bulk_read()?
Yes! Thanks.
>
> ...
>
>>>> + if (data->trigger_enabled) {
>>>> + iio_trigger_poll_chained(data->trig);
>>>> + ret = IRQ_HANDLED;
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> + if (data->state & KX022A_STATE_FIFO) {
>>>
>>>> + ret = __kx022a_fifo_flush(idev, KX022A_FIFO_LENGTH, true);
>>>> + if (ret > 0)
>>>> + ret = IRQ_HANDLED;
>>>
>>> I don't like it. Perhaps
>>>
>>> bool handled = false;
>>> int ret;
>>>
>>> ...
>>> ret = ...
>>> if (ret > 0)
>>> handled = true;
>>> ...
>>>
>>> return IRQ_RETVAL(handled);
>>
>> I don't see the benefit of adding another variable 'handled'.
>> If I understand correctly, it just introduces one extra 'if' in IRQ thread
>> handling while hiding the return value in IRQ_RETVAL() - macro.
>>
>> I do like seeing the IRQ_NONE being returned by default and IRQ_HANDLED only
>> when "handlers" are successfully executed. Adding extra variable just
>> obfuscates this (from my eyes) while adding also the additional 'if'.
>
> You assigning semantically different values to the same variable inside the
> function.
Ah, yes! This was really a bug making it way in. I guess you may just
have saved me from some not-that-funny debugging session... Well spotted!
I still don't like hiding the IRQ_HANDLED / IRQ_NONE. I'll just go for
if (data->state & KX022A_STATE_FIFO) {
int ok;
ok = __kx022a_fifo_flush(idev, KX022A_FIFO_LENGTH,
true);
if (ok > 0)
ret = IRQ_HANDLED;
}
for v4. (Which I try to send still today before my memory is flushed by
the weekend :])
Thanks a lot!
Yours
-- Matti
--
Matti Vaittinen
Linux kernel developer at ROHM Semiconductors
Oulu Finland
~~ When things go utterly wrong vim users can always type :help! ~~
Powered by blists - more mailing lists