[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9d4e7851-a874-413b-974c-d499ed59f553@linaro.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2025 18:52:53 +0200
From: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>
Cc: jic23@...nel.org, dlechner@...libre.com, nuno.sa@...log.com,
andy@...nel.org, robh@...nel.org, conor+dt@...nel.org, krzk+dt@...nel.org,
linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, s32@....com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, chester62515@...il.com, mbrugger@...e.com,
ghennadi.procopciuc@....nxp.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] iio: adc: Add the NXP SAR ADC support for the
s32g2/3 platforms
On 04/09/2025 09:33, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 03, 2025 at 05:28:09PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> On 03/09/2025 13:48, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 03, 2025 at 12:27:56PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
[ ... ]
>>>> + ret = read_poll_timeout(readl, msr, !(msr & REG_ADC_MSR_CALBUSY),
>>>
>>> Why not readl_poll_timeout()?
>>>
>>>> + NXP_SAR_ADC_WAIT_US,
>>>> + NXP_SAR_ADC_CAL_TIMEOUT_US,
>>>> + true, REG_ADC_MSR(base));
>>>> + if (ret)
>>>> + return ret;
>>>
>>>> + if (!(msr & REG_ADC_MSR_CALFAIL))
>>>> + return 0;
>>>
>>> I would expect standard pattern — "errors first", but here either works.
>>
>> Does it mean this chunk of code can be preserved or do you prefer an error
>> block followed with a return 0 ?
>
> Up to you. Only the question above (readl_poll_timeout() use) stays unanswered
> so far.
It is a typo, it should be readl_poll_timeout() as you suggested
[ ... ]
Thanks
-- Daniel
--
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
Powered by blists - more mailing lists