On Sun, 2024-01-28 at 15:27 -0600, David Lechner wrote: > On Sat, Jan 27, 2024 at 9:21 AM Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 16:14:30 +0100 > > Nuno Sa via B4 Relay <devnull+nuno.sa.analog.com@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > From: Nuno Sa <nuno.sa@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Move to the IIO backend framework. Devices supported by adi-axi-adc now > > > register themselves as backend devices. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Nuno Sa <nuno.sa@xxxxxxxxxx> > > I'm still not getting the %d vs %c change.. > > > > Otherwise LGTM > > > > > - if (cl->info->version > ver) { > > > + if (*expected_ver > ver) { > > > dev_err(&pdev->dev, > > > - "IP core version is too old. Expected %d.%.2d.%c, > > > Reported %d.%.2d.%c\n", > > > - ADI_AXI_PCORE_VER_MAJOR(cl->info->version), > > > - ADI_AXI_PCORE_VER_MINOR(cl->info->version), > > > - ADI_AXI_PCORE_VER_PATCH(cl->info->version), > > > + "IP core version is too old. Expected %d.%.2d.%d, > > > Reported %d.%.2d.%c\n", > > > > If it's a valid change fine, but then I'd expect both %c to change. > > I'd also expect it to be in a separate patch with an explanation of why. > > I was noticing this same pattern in other "AXI" drivers. I think the > reason for the %c is to match the version format in the devicetree > compatible string which looks like "1.00.a". So to fix this we should > probably keep %c and change the value line to > `ADI_AXI_PCORE_VER_PATCH(cl->info->version) + 'a'` to convert it to > the appropriate ascii value. > > (But agree that this should be done in a separate patch/) Yeah, I'm also realizing that with the axi-dac support I'm working on. In there, the %c actually does it's job and prints the last character nicely. I will double check but in this series it might just be that I have a subtle issue in my hdl design. So the plan for now is to just drop these changes and keep %c. - Nuno Sá