[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANZih_RTtcHHP80rtJ5gGkmkL1ohoctUBaGm-2Z2=Xo9VvT-Aw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2025 18:06:26 -0300
From: Andrew Ijano <andrew.ijano@...il.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>
Cc: jic23@...nel.org, andrew.lopes@...mni.usp.br, gustavobastos@....br,
dlechner@...libre.com, nuno.sa@...log.com, andy@...nel.org,
jstephan@...libre.com, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/3] iio: accel: sca3000: replace usages of internal
read data helpers by spi helpers
On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 10:22 AM Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@...el.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > + ret |= (mode & SCA3000_REG_MODE_MODE_MASK);
>
> Unneeded parentheses.
>
...
>
> > + ret = spi_w8r16be(st->us,
> > + SCA3000_READ_REG(SCA3000_REG_TEMP_MSB_ADDR));
>
> Make it simply one line. The above formatting is ugly.
That's right! I'll fix them.
>
> > struct iio_dev *indio_dev = dev_to_iio_dev(dev);
> > struct sca3000_state *st = iio_priv(indio_dev);
> > - int len = 0, ret, val;
> > + int len = 0, ret;
>
> Ideally it's better to split them and len should never be signed.
Nice! I can make this change.
> Moreover, the function should be switched to sysfs_emit_at() if this is part
> of ABI.
Great! I didn't know that.
In this case, sca3000_read_av_freq() is described as a "sysfs function
to get available frequencies", so I guess it's the case, right?
Is your suggestion to replace cases of sprintf() by sysfs_emit_at()
then? If so, I could do that in a following patch, it seems that
sca3000_show_available_3db_freqs() is also using sprintf().
>
> > mutex_lock(&st->lock);
> > - ret = sca3000_read_data_short(st, SCA3000_REG_MODE_ADDR, 1);
> > - val = st->rx[0];
> > + ret = spi_w8r8(st->us, SCA3000_READ_REG(SCA3000_REG_MODE_ADDR));
> > mutex_unlock(&st->lock);
> > if (ret)
> > return ret;
>
> ...
>
> > }, {
> > .len = len,
> > - .rx_buf = rx,
> > + .rx_buf = st->rx,
> > }
> > };
>
> > -
>
> Stray change. Doesn't checkpatch complain on this?
I don't recall getting any warning from checkpatch but I can check
again for this next version.
> > - (st->rx[0] | SCA3000_REG_MODE_RING_BUF_ENABLE));
> > + (ret | SCA3000_REG_MODE_RING_BUF_ENABLE));
>
> > - (st->rx[0] & ~SCA3000_REG_MODE_RING_BUF_ENABLE));
> > + (ret & ~SCA3000_REG_MODE_RING_BUF_ENABLE));
>
> In the original code and still now too many parentheses.
Ok! I'll remove them.
Thanks,
Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists