Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 6 Sep 2022 14:48:20 -0500 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] iio: pressure: dps310: Refactor startup procedure | From | Eddie James <> |
| |
On 8/20/22 06:49, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > On Fri, 19 Aug 2022 12:42:00 +0300 > Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 4:42 PM Eddie James <eajames@linux.ibm.com> wrote: >>> On 8/12/22 17:03, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >>>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 12:12 AM Eddie James <eajames@linux.ibm.com> wrote: >> ... >> >>>>> + rc = regmap_write(data->regmap, 0x0e, 0xA5); >>>>> + if (rc) >>>>> + return rc; >>>>> + >>>>> + rc = regmap_write(data->regmap, 0x0f, 0x96); >>>>> + if (rc) >>>>> + return rc; >>>> This code already exists, but still want to ask, is it really >>>> byte-registers here and not be16/le16 one? In such a case perhaps bulk >>>> write can be used to reflect it better? >>> The temperature and pressure regs are 24 bits big endian, and all the >>> rest are 8 bits. I think the existing approach is best. >> It doesn't look like you got what I was meaning... Or I misunderstood >> what you said. >> >> The code above writes two byte values to two sequential registers >> which make me think that they are 16-bit registers at offset 0x0e. > Given they are undocumented, this is guessing territory. > Probably best to just leave them as is. > You could do a bulk write on an array though as that implies > nothing about what's in the registers -just that they happen > to be next to each other.
Indeed. Is it worth it to switch to bulk write for two 2-byte writes? I'm inclined to say no and will leave this as-is for v6, but if you think it is, I can switch it.
Thanks,
Eddie
> >> ... >> >>>>> + rc = regmap_write(data->regmap, 0x0e, 0x00); >>>>> + if (rc) >>>>> + return rc; >>>>> + >>>>> + return regmap_write(data->regmap, 0x0f, 0x00); >> Ditto. >>
| |