[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aRXnQZvyOLpYjg2i@pengutronix.de>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2025 15:12:17 +0100
From: Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
David Jander <david@...tonic.nl>, kernel@...gutronix.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com>,
Nuno Sá <nuno.sa@...log.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] iio: adc: Add TI ADS131M0x ADC driver
Hi Andy,
On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 10:46:02PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > - Handles both input and output CRC; uses a non-reflected CCITT (0x1021)
> > implementation because the generic crc_ccitt helper is incompatible.
For the crc_ccitt() related part I wrote this comment ^^^ :) in the
commit message.
Anyways, after some more research, looks like crc_itu_t() should be used. It
seems to work.
> > +/* 24-bit resolution */
> > +#define ADS131M_RESOLUTION_BITS 24
> > +/* Divisor is 2^(Res - 1) for signed 2's complement */
> > +#define ADS131M_SCALE_DIVISOR (1UL << (ADS131M_RESOLUTION_BITS - 1))
>
> Why not BIT() here?
It's meant to signal an arithmetic calculation, BIT() is typically used
for a hardware bitmask or a flag. Should i still use BIT() here or there
is other way to describe it?
Best Regards,
Oleksij
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Steuerwalder Str. 21 | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
Powered by blists - more mailing lists