On Sun, 2024-05-19 at 19:57 +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Fri, 17 May 2024 10:47:50 +0300
> Ramona Gradinariu <ramona.bolboaca13@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Add support for ADIS1657X family devices in already exiting ADIS16475
> > driver.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ramona Gradinariu <ramona.bolboaca13@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Whilst it's not necessarily vital to support, it I'm curious about
> what happens to the hardware timestamp? I thought we had one driver
> still doing hardware timestamps directly to the buffer, but I can't
> find it so I guess we now deal with alignment in the few devices with
> this support. The st_lsm6dsx has this sort of combining of local
> and fifo timestamps for example.
>
> As it stands I think you push the same timestamp for all scans read
> from the fifo on a particular watermark interrupt? That isn't
> ideal given we should definitely be able to do better than that.
>
> > +
> > +static const struct iio_dev_attr *adis16475_fifo_attributes[] = {
> > + &iio_dev_attr_hwfifo_watermark_min.dev_attr.attr,
> > + &iio_dev_attr_hwfifo_watermark_max.dev_attr.attr,
> > + &iio_dev_attr_hwfifo_watermark.dev_attr.attr,
> > + &iio_dev_attr_hwfifo_enabled.dev_attr.attr,
> The autobuilder caught this one. Drop the dev_attr.attr.
>
> > + NULL
> > +};
> > +
>
> > +
> > +static const struct iio_buffer_setup_ops adis16475_buffer_ops = {
> > + .postenable = adis16475_buffer_postenable,
> > + .postdisable = adis16475_buffer_postdisable,
> > +};
> > +
> > +static int adis16475_set_watermark(struct iio_dev *indio_dev, unsigned int
> > val)
> > +{
> > + struct adis16475 *st = iio_priv(indio_dev);
> > + int ret;
> > + u16 wm_lvl;
> > +
> > + adis_dev_lock(&st->adis);
>
> As a follow up perhaps consider defining magic to use guard() for these as
> there are
> enough users that will be simplified to make it worth the effort.
>
Already on my queue but if Ramona wants to step in, good. I already have plenty
to do :)
- Nuno Sá
>
