On Sat, Jul 27, 2024 at 10:22:42PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 7/27/24 21:26, Tzung-Bi Shih wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 27, 2024 at 07:38:17AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > +static int get_alarms(struct regmap *regmap)
> > > +{
> > > + static u32 regs[2] = { MAX1619_REG_STATUS, MAX1619_REG_CONFIG };
> > > + u8 regdata[2];
> > > + int ret;
> > > +
> > > + ret = regmap_multi_reg_read(regmap, regs, regdata, 2);
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + return ret;
> > > +
> > > + /* OVERT status bit may be reversed */
> > > + if (!(regdata[1] & 0x20))
> > > + regdata[0] ^= 0x02;
> > > +
> > > + return regdata[0] & 0x1e;
> >
> > Why `& 0x1e`? Original max1619_update_device() doesn't do that.
> >
>
> Bit 7 is the busy bit, and the other three masked bits are reserved.
> Maybe I should make that change in a separate patch. What do you think ?
Yes, please separate the change.
