Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 13 Mar 2024 21:28:47 +0200 | From | Andy Shevchenko <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] iio: pressure: Simplify read_* functions |
| |
On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 08:22:45PM +0100, Vasileios Amoiridis wrote: > On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 09:01:55PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 06:40:03PM +0100, Vasileios Amoiridis wrote:
..
> > > case IIO_TEMP: > > > - ret = data->chip_info->read_temp(data, val, val2); > > > + ret = data->chip_info->read_temp(data); > > > + *val = data->chip_info->temp_coeffs[0] * ret; > > > + *val2 = data->chip_info->temp_coeffs[1]; > > > > > + if (!strcmp(indio_dev->name, "bmp580")) > > > + ret = IIO_VAL_FRACTIONAL_LOG2; > > > + else > > > + ret = IIO_VAL_FRACTIONAL; > > > > I'm wondering if we may replace these strcmp():s by using enum and respective > > values in chip_info. > > The whole problem starts from the fact that all these BMPxxx_CHIP_ID defines are > not unique for the respective BMPxxx device. You mean to add a new variable > that could store some enum values that would be the actual chip_info IDs? Like: > > enum chip_info_ids = { > BMP085, > BMP180, > ... > BMP580, > }; > > and later for every chip_info struct to use it like this: > > const struct bmp280_chip_info bmpxxx_chip_info = { > ... > .chip_info_id = BIT(BMPxxx),
No BIT(), but yes.
> ... > } > > And in the read_raw() function to just use the test_bit() function in the same > way that is done with the test_bit() and avail_scan_mask to test for the > enabled channels?
If BIT() is more suitable, than also yes.
-- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
| |