On Sat, 8 Mar 2025 22:26:36 +0100 Lothar Rubusch <l.rubusch@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 22, 2025 at 4:03 PM Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 20:33:52 +0000 > > Lothar Rubusch <l.rubusch@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > Fix setting the odr value to update activity time based on frequency > > > derrived by recent odr, and not by obsolete odr value. > > > > > > The [small] bug: When _adxl367_set_odr() is called with a new odr value, > > > it first writes the new odr value to the hardware register > > > ADXL367_REG_FILTER_CTL. > > > Second, it calls _adxl367_set_act_time_ms(), which calls > > > adxl367_time_ms_to_samples(). Here st->odr still holds the old odr value. > > > This st->odr member is used to derrive a frequency value, which is > > > applied to update ADXL367_REG_TIME_ACT. Hence, the idea is to update > > > activity time, based on possibilities and power consumption by the > > > current ODR rate. > > > Finally, when the function calls return, again in _adxl367_set_odr() the > > > new ODR is assigned to st->odr. > > > > > > The fix: When setting a new ODR value is set to ADXL367_REG_FILTER_CTL, > > > also ADXL367_REG_TIME_ACT should probably be updated with a frequency > > > based on the recent ODR value and not the old one. Changing the location > > > of the assignment to st->odr fixes this. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Lothar Rubusch <l.rubusch@xxxxxxxxx> > > Fixes tag? > > > > Hi IIO ML readers - Hi Jonathan, > AFAIK there is no tracked bug which I could refer to. Alternatively, I > could refer to > the commit hash of the original commit which introduced the code this > patch is supposed > to fix. Is this ok? Could you please help me here with the process? Follow description in the submitting-patches documentation. https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.14-rc5/source/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst Here the commit hash + description is what I am after in the appropriate format as described in that doc. I don't really care about patch trackers as most bug fixes are never in them as they come from people noticing issues whilst reading or testing the code during other development. Jonathan > > > Otherwise looks good to me. > > > > > --- > > > drivers/iio/accel/adxl367.c | 10 +++------- > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/iio/accel/adxl367.c b/drivers/iio/accel/adxl367.c > > > index add4053e7a02..0c04b2bb7efb 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/iio/accel/adxl367.c > > > +++ b/drivers/iio/accel/adxl367.c > > > @@ -601,18 +601,14 @@ static int _adxl367_set_odr(struct adxl367_state *st, enum adxl367_odr odr) > > > if (ret) > > > return ret; > > > > > > + st->odr = odr; > > > + > > > /* Activity timers depend on ODR */ > > > ret = _adxl367_set_act_time_ms(st, st->act_time_ms); > > > if (ret) > > > return ret; > > > > > > - ret = _adxl367_set_inact_time_ms(st, st->inact_time_ms); > > > - if (ret) > > > - return ret; > > > - > > > - st->odr = odr; > > > - > > > - return 0; > > > + return _adxl367_set_inact_time_ms(st, st->inact_time_ms); > > > } > > > > > > static int adxl367_set_odr(struct iio_dev *indio_dev, enum adxl367_odr odr) > >
