On 2022-08-19 10:17, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 1:58 PM Artur Rojek <contact@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
This is useful for consumers that wish to parse raw buffer data.
...
+int iio_find_channel_offset_in_buffer(struct iio_dev *indio_dev,
+ const struct iio_chan_spec
*chan,
+ struct iio_buffer *buffer)
+{
+ int length, offset = 0;
+ unsigned int si;
+
+ if (chan->scan_index < 0 ||
+ !test_bit(chan->scan_index, buffer->scan_mask)) {
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
Have you run checkpatch? The {} are redundant. But personally I would
split this into two separate conditionals.
I did run checkpatch on it - all patches were ready for submission.
I don't find the {} redundant for multi-line statements, like this one,
and I personally prefer to check conditions that return the same error
type together.
+ for (si = 0; si < chan->scan_index; ++si) {
Just a side crying: where did you, people, get this pre-increment
pattern from?!
+ if (!test_bit(si, buffer->scan_mask))
+ continue;
NIH for_each_set_bit()
+ length = iio_storage_bytes_for_si(indio_dev, si);
+
+ /* Account for channel alignment. */
+ if (offset % length)
+ offset += length - (offset % length);
+ offset += length;
+ }
+
+ return offset;
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(iio_find_channel_offset_in_buffer);
Same Q as per previous patch: IIO namespace?
