[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID:
<PH0PR03MB714184F6DDA26F9A89C05283F9852@PH0PR03MB7141.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2025 09:48:50 +0000
From: "Paller, Kim Seer" <KimSeer.Paller@...log.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>
CC: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>, Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
"Hennerich, Michael" <Michael.Hennerich@...log.com>,
Rob Herring
<robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
Conor Dooley
<conor+dt@...nel.org>,
David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com>,
Nuno Sá <noname.nuno@...il.com>,
"Sa, Nuno"
<Nuno.Sa@...log.com>,
"linux-iio@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org"
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v5 3/3] iio: dac: ad3530r: Add driver for AD3530R and
AD3531R
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>
> Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2025 12:50 AM
> To: Paller, Kim Seer <KimSeer.Paller@...log.com>
> Cc: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>; Lars-Peter Clausen
> <lars@...afoo.de>; Hennerich, Michael <Michael.Hennerich@...log.com>;
> Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>; Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>;
> Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>; David Lechner
> <dlechner@...libre.com>; Nuno Sá <noname.nuno@...il.com>; Sa, Nuno
> <Nuno.Sa@...log.com>; linux-iio@...r.kernel.org; linux-
> kernel@...r.kernel.org; devicetree@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] iio: dac: ad3530r: Add driver for AD3530R and
> AD3531R
>
> [External]
>
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 07:53:37AM +0000, Paller, Kim Seer wrote:
> > > From: Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2025 11:11 PM
> > > On Mon, Apr 21, 2025 at 12:24:54PM +0800, Kim Seer Paller wrote:
>
> First of all, there are a lot of comments left without replies while some of
> them commented as "agree I will follow your advice". This is confusing. The
> rule of thumb is to not reply with positive at all, just only for the things
> that you want to clarify. And with that remove a lot of unneeded (you agree
> with) context!
>
> ...
>
> > > > + st->vref_mv = range_multiplier * vref / 1000;
> > >
> > > MILLI?
> >
> > Yes this is milli, will change this also to vref_mV
> >
> > st->vref_mV = range_multiplier * vref_mV / 1000;
>
> Ah, I was not clear enough, MILLI in capital letters is defined constant which
> you may use instead of 1000.
>
> ...
>
> > > > + vref = devm_regulator_get_enable_read_voltage(dev, "ref");
> > > > + if (vref < 0 && vref != -ENODEV)
> > > > + return vref;
> > > > +
> > > > + has_external_vref = vref != -ENODEV;
> > >
> > > Wouldn't be better just make this 0 when it's == -ENODEV and check just
> the
> > > value without having this additional boolean variable (note, I haven't
> checked
> > > the meaning of Vref == 0 in case it's possible in real life and hardware
> behaves
> > > adequately)?
> >
> > I think it could be simpler to set vref to 0 when it's -ENODEV and check its
> value directly
> > without having additional boolean variable. I'll try this approach.
>
> But double check that hardware doesn't support Vref == 0 in real life.
I confirm that the hardware doesn't support Vref == 0, as also stated in the datasheet.
>
> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists