On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 10:37 PM, Matt Ranostay <mranostay@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 3:55 AM, Marek Vasut <marex@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 07/01/2016 04:52 AM, Matt Ranostay wrote:
>>> Add initial driver support for MAX6675, and MAX31855 thermocouple chips.
>>>
>>> Cc: Marek Vasut <marex@xxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Matt Porter <mporter@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Signed-off-by: Matt Ranostay <mranostay@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Changes from v1:
>>> * switch to iio_device_*_direct_mode wrappers
>>> * add const to structs
>>> * removed useless cast
>>>
>>> Changes from v2:
>>> * mark buffer data invalid on disconnected thermocouple
>>> * add .address = 0 to be consistent
>>> * add missing scan_mask for the max31855 part
>>>
>>> Changes from v3:
>>> * fixed several typos of max31855 part number
>>>
>>> Changes from v4:
>>> * drop maxim_thermocouple_validate_buffer() due to peer review saying
>>> this is an incorrect way to signal an invalid reading
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> +const struct iio_chan_spec max31855_channels[] = {
>>> + { /* thermocouple temperature */
>>> + .type = IIO_TEMP,
>>> + .address = 2,
>>> + .info_mask_separate =
>>> + BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_RAW) | BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_SCALE),
>>> + .scan_index = 0,
>>> + .scan_type = {
>>> + .sign = 's',
>>> + .realbits = 14,
>>> + .storagebits = 16,
>>> + .shift = 2,
>>> + .endianness = IIO_BE,
>>> + },
>>> + },
>>> + { /* cold junction temperature */
>>> + .type = IIO_TEMP,
>>> + .address = 0,
>>> + .channel2 = IIO_MOD_TEMP_AMBIENT,
>>> + .modified = 1,
>>> + .info_mask_separate =
>>> + BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_RAW) | BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_SCALE),
>>> + .scan_index = 1,
>>> + .scan_type = {
>>> + .sign = 's',
>>> + .realbits = 12,
>>> + .storagebits = 16,
>>> + .shift = 4,
>>> + .endianness = IIO_BE,
>>> + },
>>> + },
>>> + IIO_CHAN_SOFT_TIMESTAMP(2),
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +static const unsigned long max31855_scan_masks[] = {0x3, 0};
>>> +
>>> +struct maxim_thermocouple_chip {
>>> + const struct iio_chan_spec *channels;
>>> + const unsigned long *scan_masks;
>>> + int num_channels;
>>
>> const u8 or u32 ?
>>
>>> + int read_size;
>>
>> const u8
>
> Ok not sure saving 2 or 4 bytes of memory really matters that much :).
Although I make it part of v6.. since I noticed the buffer isn't
cachealigned as well
>
>>
>>> + /* bit-check for valid input */
>>> + int status_bit;
>>
>> const bool ?
>
> It is a bitmask of a single bit for the validation. I guess it could
> be const u32
>>
>> You can save some slop in here, see also:
>> http://www.catb.org/esr/structure-packing/
>>
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +const struct maxim_thermocouple_chip maxim_thermocouple_chips[] = {
>>> + [MAX6675] = {
>>> + .channels = max6675_channels,
>>> + .num_channels = ARRAY_SIZE(max6675_channels),
>>> + .read_size = 2,
>>> + .status_bit = BIT(2),
>>> + },
>>> + [MAX31855] = {
>>> + .channels = max31855_channels,
>>> + .num_channels = ARRAY_SIZE(max31855_channels),
>>> + .read_size = 4,
>>> + .scan_masks = max31855_scan_masks,
>>> + .status_bit = BIT(16),
>>> + },
>>> +};
>> [...]
>>
>> --
>> Best regards,
>> Marek Vasut
--
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
