[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250421123127.3a5a7d65@jic23-huawei>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2025 12:31:27 +0100
From: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
To: Gabriel Shahrouzi <gshahrouzi@...il.com>
Cc: gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, lars@...afoo.de, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev,
Michael.Hennerich@...log.com, sonic.zhang@...log.com, vapier@...too.org,
skhan@...uxfoundation.org, linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/5] staging: iio: adc: ad7816: Fix channel handling
and refactor
On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 21:49:05 -0400
Gabriel Shahrouzi <gshahrouzi@...il.com> wrote:
> The original patch combined a functional fix (allowing channel 7) with
> several refactoring steps (introducing chip_info, renaming structs,
> improving validation). As requested, these have now been separated.
>
> The series proceeds as follows:
> 1. Fix: Allow diagnostic channel 7 for all device variants.
> 2. Refactor: Rename the main state structure for clarity before introducing
> the new chip_info struct.
> 3. Refactor: Introduce struct ad7816_chip_info to hold static per-variant
> data, update ID tables to store pointers, and switch to using
> device_get_match_data() for firmware-independent identification.
> This removes the old enum/id mechanism.
> 4. Refactor: Add has_busy_pin to chip_info and use this flag to
> determine BUSY pin handling, replacing pointer comparisons.
> 5. Refactor: Simplify channel validation logic using
> chip_info->max_channels, removing strcmp() checks.
>
> Regarding the 'fixes' tag: I've applied it only to the first commit
> containing the core fix, primarily to make backporting easier. Is this
> the standard practice, or should the tag typically be applied to
> subsequent commits that build upon or are related to the fix as well?
>
> Changes in v5:
> - Use correct patch version.
Generally I wouldn't resend for this. Instead a single email in
reply to the messed up version saying it is infact v4 would have
done the job.
Alternatively a quick reply to that thread to say it was messed
up and please look for v5 would have worked to make a reader
move on directly to the newer version
Jonathan
> Changes in v4:
> - Include missing bracket for condtional statement.
> Chainges in v3:
> - Split the patch into smaller patches. Make the fix first
> followed by clean up.
> - Include missing channel for channel selection.
> - Address specific feedback regarding enums vs. chip_info data.
> - Use device_get_match_data() for device identification.
> - Move BUSY pin capability check into chip_info data.
> - Simplify channel validation using chip_info data.
> Changes in v2:
> - Refactor by adding chip_info struct which simplifies
> conditional logic.
>
> Gabriel Shahrouzi (5):
> staging: iio: adc: ad7816: Allow channel 7 for all devices
> staging: iio: adc: ad7816: Rename state structure
> staging: iio: adc: ad7816: Introduce chip_info and use pointer
> matching
> staging: iio: adc: ad7816: Use chip_info for device capabilities
> staging: iio: adc: ad7816: Simplify channel validation using chip_info
>
> drivers/staging/iio/adc/ad7816.c | 94 ++++++++++++++++++--------------
> 1 file changed, 54 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-)
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists