On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 02:32:31PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 21:28:47 +0200
> Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 08:22:45PM +0100, Vasileios Amoiridis wrote:
> > > 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:
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > > > 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),
> >
> > No BIT(), but yes.
> >
> Better to use something more meaningful such as just storing the
> type you need to return alongside the values it refers to.
> temp_coeffs_type = IIO_VAL_FRACTIONAL_LOG2 / IIO_VAL_FRACTIONAL as appropriate.
> That way the data and what it is are found in one simple place.
>
> Basic rule of thumb is that if there is a string comparison to identify
> what to do in a driver (other than deep in the fw handling code) then
> that is a bad design. Likewise any matching on an enum value that correlates
> with that chip ID. I want to see all the difference between chips in one place,
> not scattered through the code.
>
> Jonathan
>
Yes, sounds totally right. I was just hesitating to add new variables in the
chip_info structure (as you probably noticed in the next commits as well).
Best regards,
Vasilis
>
> > > ...
> > > }
> > >
> > > 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?
> >
> > If BIT() is more suitable, than also yes.
> >
>
