RE: [PATCH 1/2] iio: pressure: mpl3115: do not rely on structure field ordering

[Ken.Lin]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Rosin [mailto:peda@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2017 2:18 AM
> To: Peter Meerwald-Stadler
> Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Jonathan Cameron; Hartmut Knaack; Lars-
> Peter Clausen; Alison Schofield; Gregor Boirie; Sanchayan Maity; Ken.Lin; linux-
> iio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] iio: pressure: mpl3115: do not rely on structure field
> ordering
> 
> On 2017-02-01 10:57, Peter Meerwald-Stadler wrote:
> >>> -  		.info_mask_separate = BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_RAW),
> >>> 			BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_SCALE),
> >>> +  		.info_mask_separate = BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_RAW) |
> >>> 			BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_SCALE),
> >>> as originally intended
> >>
> >> I considered that option, but the code in mpl3115_read_raw (and
> >> mpl115_read_raw for that matter) return constants fro these values
> >> which to me indicated that they were not "separate" and as that would
> >> also be the change which replicated the exact behavior from before
> >> the regression I went with that. But I don't care either way, so I
> >> can re-spin if you want me to? (But don't blame me if that regresses
> >> in some other interesting way).
> >
> > no, all good; shared_by_type is the way to go I'd rather respin for
> > the not ORed comment in the patch
> 
> Ok, but I think I'll wait a bit so that Ken Lin gets some time to verify that it
> actually solves the original problem. It should, but...
> 


The patch test result looks good to me and functions well as before.

# ls /sys/bus/iio/devices/iio\:device1/
buffer  current_timestamp_clock  dev  in_pressure_raw  in_pressure_scale  in_temp_raw  in_temp_scale  name  of_node  power  scan_elements  subsystem  trigger  uevent
# cat /sys/bus/iio/devices/iio\:device1/in_pressure_raw
403668
# cat /sys/bus/iio/devices/iio\:device1/in_pressure_scale
0.000250
# cat /sys/bus/iio/devices/iio\:device1/in_temp_scale
0.062500
# cat /sys/bus/iio/devices/iio\:device1/in_temp_raw
480

Thanks

> Cheers,
> peda
> 
> 
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by
> MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.