On Sun, 24 Mar 2024 20:20:21 +0100 Lothar Rubusch <l.rubusch@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, Mar 24, 2024 at 2:39 PM Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 12:20:24 +0000 > > Lothar Rubusch <l.rubusch@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > Pass a function setup() as pointer from SPI/I2C specific modules > > > to the core module. Implement setup() to pass the spi-3wire bus > > > option, if declared in the device-tree. > > > > > > In the core module, then update data_format register > > > configuration bits instead of overwriting it. The changes allow > > > to remove a data_range field, remove I2C and SPI redundant info > > > instances and replace them by a common info array instance. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Lothar Rubusch <l.rubusch@xxxxxxxxx> > > That patch break up seems reasonable (one minor request for a split > > in the relevant patch), but normal convention would be do do > > refactoring first, then functionality at the end. Also removal stuff > > and group, before adding things. > > > > So roughly speaking reorder as > > > > > iio: accel: adxl345: Make data_format obsolete > > > iio: accel: adxl345: Remove single info instances > > > iio: accel: adxl345: Group bus configuration > > > dt-bindings: iio: accel: adxl345: Add spi-3wire > > > iio: accel: adxl345: Pass function pointer to core > > > iio: accel: adxl345: Add the spi-3wire > > > > Ok. If I split "Group bus configuration" into the grouping of the > indio_dev in the probe() and adding a comment to the core's probe(), I > will end up with something like this: > > $ git log --oneline --reverse > iio: accel: adxl345: Make data_range obsolete > iio: accel: adxl345: Group bus configuration > iio: accel: adxl345: Move defines to header <--- new > dt-bindings: iio: accel: adxl345: Add spi-3wire > iio: accel: adxl345: Pass function pointer to core > iio: accel: adxl345: Add comment to probe <--- new after split > iio: accel: adxl345: Add spi-3wire option > > I feel I have to add the comment after adding the passed function > pointer. Bascially I liked to add a comment mentioning especially the > new function pointer there. So, although being a comment, the commit > will be in this "high" position. Is this ok, or am I doing something > wrong? Should I split into setting the comment first, then inside > "Pass function pointer.." also update the comment? This is fine. Either of the options you suggest would be fine, but given you've done the above already let's go with that. Jonathan >
