lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Sep]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 7/9] iio: cros_ec: use devm_iio_triggered_buffer_setup_ext()
On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 17:31:55 +0300
Alexandru Ardelean <ardeleanalex@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 4:09 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 3:55 PM Alexandru Ardelean
> > <alexandru.ardelean@analog.com> wrote:
> >
> > > This change switches to the new devm_iio_triggered_buffer_setup_ext()
> > > function and removes the iio_buffer_set_attrs() call, for assigning the
> > > HW FIFO attributes to the buffer.
> >
> > Sorry, you were too fast with the version, below one nit.
> >
> > > Signed-off-by: Alexandru Ardelean <alexandru.ardelean@analog.com>
> > > ---
> > > .../common/cros_ec_sensors/cros_ec_sensors_core.c | 15 +++++++++------
> > > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/iio/common/cros_ec_sensors/cros_ec_sensors_core.c b/drivers/iio/common/cros_ec_sensors/cros_ec_sensors_core.c
> > > index c62cacc04672..1eafcf04ad69 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/iio/common/cros_ec_sensors/cros_ec_sensors_core.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/iio/common/cros_ec_sensors/cros_ec_sensors_core.c
> > > @@ -353,19 +353,22 @@ int cros_ec_sensors_core_init(struct platform_device *pdev,
> > > if (ret)
> > > return ret;
> > > } else {
> > > + const struct attribute **fifo_attrs;
> > > +
> > > + if (has_hw_fifo)
> > > + fifo_attrs = cros_ec_sensor_fifo_attributes;
> > > + else
> > > + fifo_attrs = NULL;
> > > +
> > > /*
> > > * The only way to get samples in buffer is to set a
> > > * software trigger (systrig, hrtimer).
> > > */
> > > - ret = devm_iio_triggered_buffer_setup(
> >
> > > + ret = devm_iio_triggered_buffer_setup_ext(
> > > dev, indio_dev, NULL, trigger_capture,
> > > - NULL);
> > > + NULL, fifo_attrs);
> >
> > Perhaps it's time to reformat a bit, i.e. move dev to the first line
> > and do the rest accordingly?
>
> this feels like a mix of preferences here;
> for once, the patch here [as-is], is the minimal form for this change
> [in terms of patch-noise];
> so, some people would choose the least noisiest patch;
>
> also, this indentation was chosen [as-is here] from the start [for
> this code block];
> not sure if it was preferred; i'd suspect it was due to the old 80-col limit;
>
> i'd leave it as-is [for now], or defer the decision to a maintainer to
> decide [either IIO or chromium];

The indenting of this whole code block is a bit too deep.

Looks to me like we should flip the sense of the outer if statement

if (!physical_device)
return 0;

That would lead to a whole bunch of reformatting around here including
picking up this.

For now I can just shuffle it a bit whilst applying.

This set isn't likely to make the merge window anyway now as I'd like
it to sit on list a little longer just because it touches several
drivers with active maintainers and I'd like time for them to sanity
check.

Jonathan


>
> >
> > > if (ret)
> > > return ret;
> > > -
> > > - if (has_hw_fifo)
> > > - iio_buffer_set_attrs(indio_dev->buffer,
> > > - cros_ec_sensor_fifo_attributes);
> > > }
> > > }
> > >
> > > --
> > > 2.17.1
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > With Best Regards,
> > Andy Shevchenko

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-09-29 17:41    [W:0.056 / U:5.228 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site