On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 6:48 AM Dan Robertson <dan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 01:02:28PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 6:27 AM Dan Robertson <dan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > +static int bma400_set_accel_output_data_rate(struct bma400_data *data,
> > > + int hz, int uhz)
> > > +{
> > > + unsigned int idx;
> > > + unsigned int odr;
> > > + unsigned int val;
> > > + int ret;
> > > +
> > > + if (hz >= BMA400_ACC_ODR_MIN_WHOLE_HZ) {
> > > + if (uhz || hz % BMA400_ACC_ODR_MIN_WHOLE_HZ)
> > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > +
> > > + val = hz / BMA400_ACC_ODR_MIN_WHOLE_HZ;
> >
> > Again, AFAICS division may be avoided in both cases (% and / above)
> > because of is_power_of_2() check below.
> > Can you revisit this?
>
> Yeah I can update this in the next patchset, but I don't know if it is much more
> readable this way.
You may describe the algo in the comment.
Let's see how it might look like
if (uhz)
return -EINVAL;
idx = __ffs(val);
/* We're expecting value to be 2^n * ODR_MIN_WHOLE_HZ */
if ((val >> idx) != BMA400_ACC_ODR_MIN_WHOLE_HZ)
retutn -EINVAL;
idx += BMA400_ACC_ODR_MIN_RAW + 1;
Would it work?
> > > + if (!is_power_of_2(val))
> > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > +
> > > + idx = __ffs(val) + BMA400_ACC_ODR_MIN_RAW + 1;
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
