On 5/7/23 23:45, Mehdi Djait wrote:
Hello Matti, On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 11:12:11AM +0300, Matti Vaittinen wrote:+const struct kx022a_chip_info kx022a_chip_info = { + .name = "kx022-accel", + .regmap_config = &kx022a_regmap_config, + .channels = kx022a_channels, + .num_channels = ARRAY_SIZE(kx022a_channels), + .fifo_length = KX022A_FIFO_LENGTH, + .who = KX022A_REG_WHO, + .id = KX022A_ID, + .cntl = KX022A_REG_CNTL, + .cntl2 = KX022A_REG_CNTL2, + .odcntl = KX022A_REG_ODCNTL, + .buf_cntl1 = KX022A_REG_BUF_CNTL1, + .buf_cntl2 = KX022A_REG_BUF_CNTL2, + .buf_clear = KX022A_REG_BUF_CLEAR, + .buf_status1 = KX022A_REG_BUF_STATUS_1, + .buf_read = KX022A_REG_BUF_READ, + .inc1 = KX022A_REG_INC1, + .inc4 = KX022A_REG_INC4, + .inc5 = KX022A_REG_INC5, + .inc6 = KX022A_REG_INC6, + .xout_l = KX022A_REG_XOUT_L, +}; +EXPORT_SYMBOL_NS_GPL(kx022a_chip_info, IIO_KX022A);Do you think the fields (or at least some of them) in this struct could be named based on the (main) functionality being used, not based on the register name? Something like "watermark_reg", "buf_en_reg", "reset_reg", "output_rate_reg", "int1_pinconf_reg", "int1_src_reg", "int2_pinconf_reg", "int1_src_reg" ... I would not be at all surprized to see for example some IRQ control to be shifted from INC<X> to INC<Y> or cntl<X> / buf_cntl<X> stuff to be moved to cntl<Y> or to buf_cntl<Y> for next sensor we want to support. Especially when new cool feature is added to next sensor, resulting also adding a new cntl<Z> or buf_cntl<Z> or INC<Z>. I, however, believe the _functionality_ will be there (in some register) - at least for the ICs for which we can re-use this driver. Hence, it might be nice - and if you can think of better names for these fields - to rename them based on the _functionality_ we use. Another benefit would be added clarity to the code. Writing a value to "buf_en_reg", "watermark_reg" or to "int1_src_reg" is much clearer (to me) than writing a value to "buf_cntl1", "buf_cntl2" or "INC4". Especially if you don't have a datasheet at your hands. I am not "demanding" this (at least not for now :]) because it seems these two Kionix sensors have been pretty consistent what comes to maintaining the same functionality in the registers with same naming - but I believe this is something that may in any case be lurking around the corner.I agree, this seems to be the better solution. I will look into this.Thanks for going the extra mile :)I am reconsidering the renaming of the fields 1. inc{1,4,5,6} get assigned once to data->{ien_reg,inc_reg} in the probe function and then never used again 2. buf_cntl2 is used for enabling the buffer and changing the resolution to 16bits, so which name is better than buf_cntl ? 3. cntl seems the most appropriate name, again different functions and the same reg
I think that for the clarity and re-usability we would have fields for functions. We could for example have separate fields for buffer enable and resolution even though it means assigning the same register to both. This, however, is somewhat wasteful (memory vise).
Problem with buf_cntl1 and buf_cntl2 is that the 'cntl' is too broad to really tell what the control is. Also, what is the difference of buf_cntl1 and buf_cntl2?
4. who, id, xout_l, odcntl, buf_{clear, status, read} are quite straightforward
I agree. These look pretty clear to me, although 'status' is also somewhat ambiguous. (Is it sample level? Is it some corruption detection? Can the buffer be 'busy'?).
Anyway this is my opinion, what do you think ?
I can currently live with both of these approaches. We may need to review this if/when adding support to other sensor(s) though. I will leave the decision to you - just make the code best you can ;)
Yours, -- Matti -- Matti Vaittinen Linux kernel developer at ROHM Semiconductors Oulu Finland ~~ When things go utterly wrong vim users can always type :help! ~~
