On Wed, Sep 04, 2024 at 05:17:29PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 04, 2024 at 12:24:27PM +0200, Vasileios Amoiridis wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 03, 2024 at 05:26:38PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 02, 2024 at 08:42:19PM +0200, Vasileios Amoiridis wrote:
...
> > > > + if (!(reg & BMP380_STATUS_DRDY_PRESS_MASK) ||
> > > > + !(reg & BMP380_STATUS_DRDY_TEMP_MASK)) {
> > > > + dev_err(data->dev, "Measurement cycle didn't complete.\n");
> > > > + return -EBUSY;
> > > > + }
> > >
> > > Alternatively
> > >
> > > if (!((reg & BMP380_STATUS_DRDY_PRESS_MASK) &&
> > > !(reg & BMP380_STATUS_DRDY_TEMP_MASK)) {
> > > dev_err(data->dev, "Measurement cycle didn't complete.\n");
> > > return -EBUSY;
> > > }
> >
> > Why would I use && instead of || ? I just need one of the 2 to be true
> > (one of the 2 measurements is not complete) and I can trigger the error
> > action.
>
> Oh, I messed up the logic inversion, but wouldn't it be simpler to read
> "we return busy if neither press nor temp drdy bit set"?
>
> if (!((reg & BMP380_STATUS_DRDY_PRESS_MASK) && (reg & BMP380_STATUS_DRDY_TEMP_MASK))) {
> dev_err(data->dev, "Measurement cycle didn't complete.\n");
> return -EBUSY;
> }
>
> (I left long line for the better understanding of my point, you may break it to
> two if needed)
Scratch below, it needs more thinking...
> With that, you even may have
>
> #define BMP380_STATUS_DRDY_PRESS_AND_TEMP_MASK ...
>
> if (!(reg & BMP380_STATUS_DRDY_PRESS_AND_TEMP_MASK)) {
Maybe ^, but I have no time to dive into this, you got the idea I believe.
> dev_err(data->dev, "Measurement cycle didn't complete.\n");
> return -EBUSY;
> }
>
> which makes it all obvious.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
