On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 10:39:59AM -0700, David Frey wrote: > Remove BME680_RUN_GAS_EN_BIT and BME680_NB_CONV_0_VAL field value > definitions because the fields are simply boolean and integer > respectively. > > Signed-off-by: David Frey <dpfrey@xxxxxxxxx> Reviewed-by: Himanshu Jha <himanshujha199640@xxxxxxxxx> Tested-by: Himanshu Jha <himanshujha199640@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > This patch applies on top of my "indent #defines consistently" v3 patch. > Appologies if I should have submitted this patch in a different way. If > I should have submitted this differently, I would appreciate a pointer > on what I should have done in this case. This applies cleanly so no worries I guess. Would have been better to send this patch as a separate thread since thread becomes complex and its hard to find the new patch in the nested series of replies. > BME680_RUN_GAS_EN_BIT was indeed somewhat wrongly formatted, but the > issue was not the indentation level, but rather that I should have > followed immediately after BME680_RUN_GAS_MASK. Once I moved it there, > I realized that neither this definition nor BME680_NB_CONV_0_VAL really > added any value and hence I removed both in this patch. My main intention was to make it explicit that we are selected NB_CONV_0 set point, and I didn't knew about FIELD_PREP helper macro until you pointed me out in the early review cycle. Now, it is much appropriate. Thanks -- Himanshu Jha Undergraduate Student Department of Electronics & Communication Guru Tegh Bahadur Institute of Technology
