[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aMQ0JlbqIuMwDBpQ@sunspire>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2025 17:54:30 +0300
From: Petre Rodan <petre.rodan@...dimension.ro>
To: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
Cc: David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com>, Nuno S?? <nuno.sa@...log.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>,
linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 08/14] iio: accel: bma220: migrate to regmap API
Hi Jonathan,
On Wed, Sep 10, 2025 at 07:12:25PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Sep 2025 10:57:13 +0300
> Petre Rodan <petre.rodan@...dimension.ro> wrote:
>
> > Switch to regmap API.
> >
> There are a few things in here that seem unrelated to the regmap change
> and should be in separate patches where we can review and discuss them more easily.
>
> Thanks,
> Jonathan
>
> > diff --git a/drivers/iio/accel/bma220_core.c b/drivers/iio/accel/bma220_core.c
> >> static irqreturn_t bma220_trigger_handler(int irq, void *p)
> > {
[..]
> > iio_push_to_buffers_with_ts(indio_dev, &data->scan, sizeof(data->scan),
> > - pf->timestamp);
>
> Why the move to grabbing timestamps in the thread rather than the top half?
>
> I don't necessarily mind that change but doesn't feel appropriate to have
> it in the same patch as the regmap change.
one of my unit tests [1] fails when using the original code (all timestamps are
0 when reading the IIO buffer with iio_generic_buffer)
would be easier to just split modification into new patch instead of debugging
the old code :)
[1]: https://codeberg.org/subDIMENSION/lkm_sandbox/src/branch/main/bosch_bma220/unit-tests/permanent_latch/test.sh
best regards,
peter
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists