On Mon, 2024-09-09 at 20:13 +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > Hi Emil, > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/iio/light/opt3001.c b/drivers/iio/light/opt3001.c > > > > index 176e54bb48c3..e6098f88dd04 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/iio/light/opt3001.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/iio/light/opt3001.c > > > > @@ -70,6 +70,19 @@ > > > > #define OPT3001_RESULT_READY_SHORT 150 > > > > #define OPT3001_RESULT_READY_LONG 1000 > > > > > > > > +/* The opt3002 doesn't have a device id register, predefine value instead */ > > > > +#define OPT3002_DEVICE_ID_VALUE 3002 > > > > > > Why? Just make the code not care about the value for this > > > device. Add a flag to the chip info structure to say it doesn't have > > > one and check that before using it. > > > > The device id is used to log the model. Should I not log the > > model for the opt3002 then or should I have the callback just return > > 3002? I thought it would be cleaner to have the id value as a defined > > constant instead of a "magic" number in the code. Is there a preferred > > way of doing it? > > Given the lack of register means you can't check the model, don't > report one at all. So don't print that message for this > device. > > For future replies crop out anything that doesn't need a reply. > Saves a reader having to scroll and potentially miss something > important! > > Thanks, > > Jonathan Hi Jonathan, Sorry for the delay and thank you for the suggestion. I'll do the finishing touches on version 2 and submit it as soon as possible. Best regards, Emil
