Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] iio: magnetometer: Add driver support for PNI RM3100

[Jonathan Cameron]

On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 16:00:02 +0800
Song Qiang <songqiang1304521@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 2018/10/12 äå8:53, Himanshu Jha wrote:
> > Hi Qiang,
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 04:36:01PM +0800, Song Qiang wrote:  
> >>
> >> On 2018å10æ12æ 15:35, Song Qiang wrote:  
> >>> PNI RM3100 is a high resolution, large signal immunity magnetometer,
> >>> composed of 3 single sensors and a processing chip with a MagI2C
> >>> interface.
> >>>  
> >> ...  
> >>> +static irqreturn_t rm3100_trigger_handler(int irq, void *p)
> >>> +{
> >>> +	struct iio_poll_func *pf = p;
> >>> +	struct iio_dev *indio_dev = pf->indio_dev;
> >>> +	unsigned long scan_mask = *indio_dev->active_scan_mask;
> >>> +	unsigned int mask_len = indio_dev->masklength;
> >>> +	struct rm3100_data *data = iio_priv(indio_dev);
> >>> +	struct regmap *regmap = data->regmap;
> >>> +	int ret, i, bit;
> >>> +
> >>> +	mutex_lock(&data->lock);
> >>> +	switch (scan_mask) {
> >>> +	case BIT(0) | BIT(1) | BIT(2):
> >>> +		ret = regmap_bulk_read(regmap, RM3100_REG_MX2, data->buffer, 9);
> >>> +		mutex_unlock(&data->lock);
> >>> +		if (ret < 0)
> >>> +			goto done;
> >>> +	break;
> >>> +	case BIT(0) | BIT(1):
> >>> +		ret = regmap_bulk_read(regmap, RM3100_REG_MX2, data->buffer, 6);
> >>> +		mutex_unlock(&data->lock);
> >>> +		if (ret < 0)
> >>> +			goto done;
> >>> +	break;
> >>> +	case BIT(1) | BIT(2):
> >>> +		ret = regmap_bulk_read(regmap, RM3100_REG_MY2, data->buffer, 6);
> >>> +		mutex_unlock(&data->lock);
> >>> +		if (ret < 0)
> >>> +			goto done;
> >>> +	break;  
> >> Hi Jonathan,
> >>
> >> I just noticed that these three breaks are not proper aligned.  
> > Please send the new version of a patch as a *new* thread and don't
> > use `--in-reply-to` flag(if you're using) to chain into older versions
> > as whole thread of older discussion comes up and is often not required.
> >
> > The changelog gives enough info of what's new in the revised series.
> >
> >  
> Hi Himanshu,
> 
> 
> Thanks for your advise.
> 
> I did it because the following instruction tells me to, and I think it's 
> also a very quick way of gathering
> 
> all scattered messages. Both ways have their own advantages and 
> disadvantages I think. :)
> 
> <https://kernelnewbies.org/PatchPhilosophy> Section "Updating and 
> resending patches".
That's a curious bit of advice.  There are certainly a lot of maintainers
who would not want that.  It never works with anything beyond trivial
and short patches (we have had patches going to v13 + and hundreds of
emails) - no email client handles that depth and complexity in
a coherent fashion. Replying to previous versions is one of those things
that makes sense until you hit the 'unusual cases' ;)

Oh well. I should probably propose a change to that Doc, but it make
take some time for me to get around to it.

Thanks,

Jonathan

> 
> 
> yours,
> 
> Song Qiang
>