Hi Chenyuan,
On 3/12/24 18:53, Chenyuan Yang wrote:
Hi Matti,
I have a question about the "The idea of the check which has been
removed was to assign the value in
the array in first free spot if it is bigger than the last value".
Can you please avoid top-posting when discussing on the Linux lists. You
can find more information from:
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html
part of which may be crucial in order to get your changes applied if you
haven't already familiarized yourself with the kernel development processes.
- if (times[idx] < new) {
- times[idx++] = new;
- continue;
- }
+ times[idx] = new;
It appears that the comparison should perhaps be made with `idx-1`
rather than `idx`, given that `idx` represents the current number of
copied values in times, whereas `idx-1` points to the last value.
Could I have your thoughts on this?
Yes. I implemented the old code wrong as you pointed out.
You may want to take the GTS Kunit test cases:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/6b839dd533fd93b75c2e6f6a8f2286233d4901fb.1704881096.git.mazziesaccount@xxxxxxxxx/
which, I think, are already merged in IIO testing branch.
You can test the sorting when you change the order of the times in the
test case:
+static const struct iio_itime_sel_mul gts_test_itimes[] = {
+ GAIN_SCALE_ITIME_US(400 * 1000, TEST_TSEL_400, 8),
+ GAIN_SCALE_ITIME_US(200 * 1000, TEST_TSEL_200, 4),
+ GAIN_SCALE_ITIME_US(100 * 1000, TEST_TSEL_100, 2),
+ GAIN_SCALE_ITIME_US(50 * 1000, TEST_TSEL_50, 1),
+#define TIMEGAIN_MAX 8
+};
for example to
+static const struct iio_itime_sel_mul gts_test_itimes[] = {
+ GAIN_SCALE_ITIME_US(400 * 1000, TEST_TSEL_400, 8),
+ GAIN_SCALE_ITIME_US(50 * 1000, TEST_TSEL_50, 1),
+ GAIN_SCALE_ITIME_US(200 * 1000, TEST_TSEL_200, 4),
+ GAIN_SCALE_ITIME_US(100 * 1000, TEST_TSEL_100, 2),
+#define TIMEGAIN_MAX 8
+};
Yours,
-- Matti
--
Matti Vaittinen
Linux kernel developer at ROHM Semiconductors
Oulu Finland
~~ When things go utterly wrong vim users can always type :help! ~~
