On 24/12/14 00:35, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 23, 2014 at 11:45:59 PM, Stefan Wahren wrote:
>> Hi Marek,
>
> Hi!
>
>>> Marek Vasut <marex@xxxxxxx> hat am 23. Dezember 2014 um 14:37
>>> geschrieben:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, December 22, 2014 at 01:14:36 PM, Stefan Wahren wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> Very minor coding style flub in this comment above. Multi-line comments
>>> should start with /* and a newline after that ;-)
>>
>> Thanks for your advice.
>
> Sure, it's really a minor thing.
>
>>>> + * from the datasheet:
>>>> + * "The DELAY fields in HW_LRADC_DELAY0, HW_LRADC_DELAY1,
>>>> + * HW_LRADC_DELAY2, and HW_LRADC_DELAY3 must be non-zero; otherwise,
>>>> + * the LRADC will not trigger the delay group."
>>>> + */
>>>> mxs_lradc_reg_wrt(lradc, LRADC_DELAY_TRIGGER(1 << ch) |
>>>> LRADC_DELAY_TRIGGER_DELAYS(0) |
>>>> LRADC_DELAY_LOOP(lradc->over_sample_cnt - 1) |
>>>> @@ -1495,20 +1501,38 @@ static int mxs_lradc_probe_touchscreen(struct
>>>> mxs_lradc *lradc, return -EINVAL;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> - lradc->over_sample_cnt = 4;
>>>> - ret = of_property_read_u32(lradc_node, "fsl,ave-ctrl", &adapt);
>>>> - if (ret == 0)
>>>> + if (of_property_read_u32(lradc_node, "fsl,ave-ctrl", &adapt)) {
>>>> + lradc->over_sample_cnt = 4;
>>>> + } else {
>>>> + if (adapt < 1 || adapt > 32) {
>>>
>>> This is just an idea, but do we not have some kind of a
>>> "of_property_read_u32_range()" thingie, which would include this kind of
>>> range checking ? Would it be worth implementing such thing ? What do you
>>> think please ?
>>
>> I never heard of such a function. I think it's not the best idea of mixing
>> dt parsing and range checking in a general function.
>
> It was just an idea, since it would trim down the code duplication a bit.
It's an interesting thought certainly as this must be a fairly common case...
>
>> But this code does nearly the same thing 3 times. How about defining an
>> array of property range structures:
>>
>> static const struct property_value_range mxs_lradc_properties[] = {
>> {
>> .name = "fsl,ave-ctrl",
>> .min_value = 1,
>> .max_value = 32,
>> .default_value = 4,
>> },
>> {
>> .name = "fsl,ave-delay",
>> .min_value = 2,
>> .max_value = LRADC_DELAY_DELAY_MASK+1,
>> .default_value = 2,
>> },
>> {
>> .name = "fsl,settling",
>> .min_value = 1,
>> .max_value = LRADC_DELAY_DELAY_MASK,
>> .default_value = 10,
>> },
>> };
>>
>> and a local validate function for these optional parameters.
>
> That's becoming a bit too complex for such a simple task. I cannot tell right
> now, so I'd prefer of others chimed in.
I'd leave as it is. If there were a few more cases it might be worth the
function, but probably not for these 3.
A shorter option might be to just use a function with the constants passed
in as parameters for each call.
>
> Have a nice holiday!
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
