On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 05:24:58PM +0530, Himanshu Jha wrote:
> Use sign_extend32 function instead of manually coding it. Also, adjust a
^^^^^
> switch block to explicitly match channels and return -EINVAL as default
> case which improves code readability.
Greg likes to say something along the lines of "when you start your
sentence with "Also, " that could be a clue that it should be a separate
patch.".
>
> Signed-off-by: Himanshu Jha <himanshujha199640@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/staging/iio/accel/adis16201.c | 13 ++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/iio/accel/adis16201.c b/drivers/staging/iio/accel/adis16201.c
> index 011d2c5..6800347 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/iio/accel/adis16201.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/iio/accel/adis16201.c
> @@ -112,12 +112,17 @@ static int adis16201_read_raw(struct iio_dev *indio_dev,
> case IIO_CHAN_INFO_SCALE:
> switch (chan->type) {
> case IIO_VOLTAGE:
> - if (chan->channel == 0) {
> + switch (chan->channel) {
> + case 0:
> *val = 1;
> *val2 = 220000;
> - } else {
> + break;
> + case 1:
> *val = 0;
> *val2 = 610000;
> + break;
> + default:
> + return -EINVAL;
> }
I don't think this improves readability. The -EINVAL is to handle a
driver bug which we haven't introduced yet. Probably we would be better
off printing a warning or something? But it feels weird to introduce so
much code to handle a bug which would actually be pretty difficult to
write. The original code is fine.
> return IIO_VAL_INT_PLUS_MICRO;
> case IIO_TEMP:
> @@ -155,9 +160,7 @@ static int adis16201_read_raw(struct iio_dev *indio_dev,
> if (ret)
> return ret;
>
> - val16 &= (1 << bits) - 1;
> - val16 = (s16)(val16 << (16 - bits)) >> (16 - bits);
> - *val = val16;
> + *val = sign_extend32(val16, bits - 1);
Yeah. This is a nice clean up.
regards,
dan carpenter
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
