On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 09:01:55PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 06:40:03PM +0100, Vasileios Amoiridis wrote:
>
> In the Subject: ... read_*() functions
>
> > Add the coefficients for the IIO standard units inside the chip_info
> > structure.
> >
> > Remove the calculations with the coefficients for the IIO compatibility
> > from inside the read_(temp/press/humid) functions and move it to the
>
> read_{temp,press,humid}()
>
> > read_raw function.
>
> read_raw()
>
> > Execute the calculations with the coefficients inside the read_raw
>
> read_raw()
>
> > oneshot capture functions.
> >
> > Also fix raw_* and comp_* values signs.
>
Thank you very much for pointing these out, I should have thought it.
> ...
>
> > case IIO_TEMP:
> > - ret = data->chip_info->read_temp(data, val, val2);
> > + ret = data->chip_info->read_temp(data);
> > + *val = data->chip_info->temp_coeffs[0] * ret;
> > + *val2 = data->chip_info->temp_coeffs[1];
>
> > + if (!strcmp(indio_dev->name, "bmp580"))
> > + ret = IIO_VAL_FRACTIONAL_LOG2;
> > + else
> > + ret = IIO_VAL_FRACTIONAL;
>
> I'm wondering if we may replace these strcmp():s by using enum and respective
> values in chip_info.
>
The whole problem starts from the fact that all these BMPxxx_CHIP_ID defines are
not unique for the respective BMPxxx device. You mean to add a new variable
that could store some enum values that would be the actual chip_info IDs? Like:
enum chip_info_ids = {
BMP085,
BMP180,
...
BMP580,
};
and later for every chip_info struct to use it like this:
const struct bmp280_chip_info bmpxxx_chip_info = {
...
.chip_info_id = BIT(BMPxxx),
...
}
And in the read_raw() function to just use the test_bit() function in the same
way that is done with the test_bit() and avail_scan_mask to test for the
enabled channels?
Best regards,
Vasilis Amoiridis
> > break;
>
> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
>
>
