On Thu, 2024-10-10 at 18:47 +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Oct 2024 07:19:06 +0000
> Emil Gedenryd <Emil.Gedenryd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 2024-10-06 at 14:16 +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > > On Thu, 3 Oct 2024 14:22:17 +0200
> > > Emil Gedenryd <emil.gedenryd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > +struct opt3001_chip_info {
> > > > + const struct iio_chan_spec (*channels)[2];
> > > > + enum iio_chan_type chan_type;
> > > > + int num_channels;
> > > > +
> > > > + const struct opt3001_scale (*scales)[12];
> > > This doesn't compile for me as one of the two options only
> > > has 11 entries. You could either force them to be 12
> > > entries each or use a pointer without the size and
> > > add a num_scales entry in here.
> > >
> > > Jonathan
> >
> > Hi Jonathan,
> >
> > Are you building on top of the patch that was accepted in earlier versions of this
> > patch set? That patch adds the twelfth missing scale value for the opt3001.
> > See: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240916-add_opt3002-v3-1-984b190cd68c@xxxxxxxx/
> >
> > Should I have added some tag to highlight the dependency for this version of the
> > patch set?
> Ah. Yes, I was half asleep.
> They are going via different branches (slow and fast) so I'll have to
> sit on this series until after that fix is in the upstream for the togreg
> branch of iio.git.
>
> If I seem to have lost it after that is the case feel free to give me a poke.
>
> Jonathan
>
Hi,
No worries. Just to clarify, do you mean sit on it as that you will continue reviewing
the code after the fix is in upstream, or should I consider this patch to be approved?
Also, do you have an approximation of what time frame we're talking about?
Best Regards,
Emil
