On Fri, 11 Oct 2024 21:32:38 +0200 Javier Carrasco <javier.carrasco.cruz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > ... > > > > > Hi everyone! > > > > So if you check also the conversations that we had here [1] and in the > > previous versions, indeed the idea behind the offset is to use it as an > > self-explanatory index to a char buffer that holds in fact s32 variables. > > > > The data->buf here holds the values that have just been read from the > > sensor. If you check on the channel specification of this sensor, > > you will see ".realbits = 24" in both values that the sensor returns so > > hence the value 3. > > > > So you are using 3 = 24 bits, but s32 not as 4 bytes? the whole thing > would have turned into sensor_data[0], sensor_data[4], and no variables > implied, correct? But I am discussing too much for something that in the > end is more or less the same, I am fine with this proposal. Applied the fix. Thanks, Jonathan > > > I am not sure if it makes sense to use a macro here for each one of the > > 3's that are going to be used only one time each and in order to be more > > "consistent". But I might have a wrong view on this one so feel free to > > correct me! > > > > For the initialization of the offset indeed, it was already mentioned > > here [2] this morning, but on a different patch!!! I couldn't get this > > error though with gcc... > > > > Cheers, > > Vasilis > > > > At least for the things I do in the kernel, clang catches more issues > than gcc. Sometimes even gcc will not complain, and clang will fail to > compile (e.g. a goto before a cleanup attribute). > > And if you run smatch before sending the series, you might discover a > couple of extra "surprises". > > Best regards, > Javier Carrasco
