On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 6:40 PM Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 17:31:55 +0300
> Alexandru Ardelean <ardeleanalex@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 4:09 PM Andy Shevchenko
> > <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 3:55 PM Alexandru Ardelean
> > > <alexandru.ardelean@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > This change switches to the new devm_iio_triggered_buffer_setup_ext()
> > > > function and removes the iio_buffer_set_attrs() call, for assigning the
> > > > HW FIFO attributes to the buffer.
> > >
> > > Sorry, you were too fast with the version, below one nit.
> > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Alexandru Ardelean <alexandru.ardelean@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > .../common/cros_ec_sensors/cros_ec_sensors_core.c | 15 +++++++++------
> > > > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/iio/common/cros_ec_sensors/cros_ec_sensors_core.c b/drivers/iio/common/cros_ec_sensors/cros_ec_sensors_core.c
> > > > index c62cacc04672..1eafcf04ad69 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/iio/common/cros_ec_sensors/cros_ec_sensors_core.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/iio/common/cros_ec_sensors/cros_ec_sensors_core.c
> > > > @@ -353,19 +353,22 @@ int cros_ec_sensors_core_init(struct platform_device *pdev,
> > > > if (ret)
> > > > return ret;
> > > > } else {
> > > > + const struct attribute **fifo_attrs;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (has_hw_fifo)
> > > > + fifo_attrs = cros_ec_sensor_fifo_attributes;
> > > > + else
> > > > + fifo_attrs = NULL;
> > > > +
> > > > /*
> > > > * The only way to get samples in buffer is to set a
> > > > * software trigger (systrig, hrtimer).
> > > > */
> > > > - ret = devm_iio_triggered_buffer_setup(
> > >
> > > > + ret = devm_iio_triggered_buffer_setup_ext(
> > > > dev, indio_dev, NULL, trigger_capture,
> > > > - NULL);
> > > > + NULL, fifo_attrs);
> > >
> > > Perhaps it's time to reformat a bit, i.e. move dev to the first line
> > > and do the rest accordingly?
> >
> > this feels like a mix of preferences here;
> > for once, the patch here [as-is], is the minimal form for this change
> > [in terms of patch-noise];
> > so, some people would choose the least noisiest patch;
> >
> > also, this indentation was chosen [as-is here] from the start [for
> > this code block];
> > not sure if it was preferred; i'd suspect it was due to the old 80-col limit;
> >
> > i'd leave it as-is [for now], or defer the decision to a maintainer to
> > decide [either IIO or chromium];
>
> The indenting of this whole code block is a bit too deep.
>
> Looks to me like we should flip the sense of the outer if statement
>
> if (!physical_device)
> return 0;
>
> That would lead to a whole bunch of reformatting around here including
> picking up this.
>
> For now I can just shuffle it a bit whilst applying.
>
> This set isn't likely to make the merge window anyway now as I'd like
> it to sit on list a little longer just because it touches several
> drivers with active maintainers and I'd like time for them to sanity
> check.
>
ping on this;
should i do a V4 for this?
this is related to the multiple IIO buffer support:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iio/20201117162340.43924-1-alexandru.ardelean@xxxxxxxxxx/T/#t
it's one of the patchsets i could split away on it's own;
> Jonathan
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > > if (ret)
> > > > return ret;
> > > > -
> > > > - if (has_hw_fifo)
> > > > - iio_buffer_set_attrs(indio_dev->buffer,
> > > > - cros_ec_sensor_fifo_attributes);
> > > > }
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > 2.17.1
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > With Best Regards,
> > > Andy Shevchenko
>
