On Tue, 14 May 2024 16:09:32 +0300
Andy Shevchenko <andy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 03:02:22PM +0300, Alisa-Dariana Roman wrote:
> > Unlike the other AD719Xs, AD7194 has configurable channels. The user can
> > dynamically configure them in the devicetree.
> >
> > Add sigma_delta_info member to chip_info structure. Since AD7194 is the
> > only chip that has no channel sequencer, num_slots should remain
> > undefined.
> >
> > Also modify config AD7192 description for better scaling.
>
> Some non-critical, mostly style related comments below.
>
Tweaked a bit. And applied. Please check the result in the testing branch
of iio.git.
> ...
>
> This...
>
> > +#define AD7194_CH(p) (BIT(10) | AD7194_CH_POS(p))
> > + /* 10th bit corresponds to CON18(Pseudo) */
>
> ...should be (you have broken indentation on the comment, btw):
>
> /* 10th bit corresponds to CON18(Pseudo) */
> #define AD7194_CH(p) (BIT(10) | AD7194_CH_POS(p))
>
> But no need to resend because of this, let's wait others to comment, and
> if everything fine I think Jonathan can massage this when applying.
Fixed.
>
> ...
>
> > +#define AD7194_CH_TEMP 0x100 /* Temp sensor */
>
> Not sure that the comment has any value here.
Dropped
>
> ...
>
> > +static int ad7194_validate_ain_channel(struct device *dev, u32 ain)
> > +{
> > + if (!in_range(ain, AD7194_CH_AIN_START, AD7194_CH_AIN_NR))
> > + return dev_err_probe(dev, -EINVAL,
> > + "Invalid AIN channel: %u\n", ain);
> > +
> > + return 0;
>
> While this uses traditional pattern, it might be better looking in a form of
>
> if (in_range(ain, AD7194_CH_AIN_START, AD7194_CH_AIN_NR))
> return 0;
>
> return dev_err_probe(dev, -EINVAL, "Invalid AIN channel: %u\n", ain);
>
> But at the same time I would rather expect this to be in the caller and here
> to have a boolean function
>
Moved it.
> static bool ad7194_is_ain_channel_valid(struct device *dev, u32 ain)
> {
> return in_range(ain, AD7194_CH_AIN_START, AD7194_CH_AIN_NR);
> }
>
> > +}
>
> ...
>
> > + return dev_err_probe(dev, -EINVAL,
> > + "Too many channels: %u\n", num_channels);
>
> return dev_err_probe(dev, -EINVAL, "Too many channels: %u\n", num_channels);
>
> ?
>
> Or with limit
>
> return dev_err_probe(dev, -EINVAL, "Too many channels: %u\n",
> num_channels);
>
>
This one.
> ...
>
> > + ad7194_channels = devm_kcalloc(dev, num_channels,
> > + sizeof(*ad7194_channels), GFP_KERNEL);
>
> ad7194_channels = devm_kcalloc(dev, num_channels, sizeof(*ad7194_channels), GFP_KERNEL);
>
> ?
>
> Or
>
> ad7194_channels = devm_kcalloc(dev, num_channels, sizeof(*ad7194_channels),
> GFP_KERNEL);
Nope. too long in either case.
>
> ?
>
> ...
>
> > + device_for_each_child_node_scoped(dev, child) {
> > + ret = fwnode_property_read_u32_array(child, "diff-channels",
> > + ain, ARRAY_SIZE(ain));
> > + if (ret == 0) {
>
> And here I would rather go for the traditional pattern, i.e.
>
> if (ret) {
> ...
> } else {
> ...
> }
It's odd, as it's two good paths I've left this one alone.
>
> > + ret = ad7194_validate_ain_channel(dev, ain[0]);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
> > +
> > + ret = ad7194_validate_ain_channel(dev, ain[1]);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
> > +
> > + *ad7194_channels = ad7194_chan_diff;
> > + ad7194_channels->scan_index = index++;
> > + ad7194_channels->channel = ain[0];
> > + ad7194_channels->channel2 = ain[1];
> > + ad7194_channels->address = AD7194_DIFF_CH(ain[0], ain[1]);
> > + } else {
> > + ret = fwnode_property_read_u32(child, "single-channel",
> > + &ain[0]);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return dev_err_probe(dev, ret,
> > + "Missing channel property\n");
> > +
> > + ret = ad7194_validate_ain_channel(dev, ain[0]);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
> > +
> > + *ad7194_channels = ad7194_chan;
> > + ad7194_channels->scan_index = index++;
> > + ad7194_channels->channel = ain[0];
> > + ad7194_channels->address = AD7194_CH(ain[0]);
> > + }
> > + ad7194_channels++;
> > + }
>
