Re: [PATCH 3/3] iio: accel: Add support for Kionix/ROHM KX132 accelerometer

From: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>
To: Mehdi Djait <mehdi.djait.k@gmail.com>
Cc: mazziesaccount@gmail.com, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org,
	andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com, linux-iio@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] iio: accel: Add support for Kionix/ROHM KX132 accelerometer
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2023 18:12:03 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230325181203.1e93df7d@jic23-huawei> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZBnch1tSKyR4fA7H@carbian>

On Tue, 21 Mar 2023 17:34:15 +0100
Mehdi Djait <mehdi.djait.k@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello Jonathan,
> 
> On Sun, Mar 19, 2023 at 04:22:07PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > On Fri, 17 Mar 2023 00:48:37 +0100
> > Mehdi Djait <mehdi.djait.k@gmail.com> wrote:
> >   
> > > Add support for the basic accelerometer features such as getting the
> > > acceleration data via IIO. (raw reads, triggered buffer [data-ready] or
> > > using the WMI IRQ).
> > > 
> > > Datasheet: https://kionixfs.azureedge.net/en/document/KX132-1211-Technical-Reference-Manual-Rev-5.0.pdf
> > > Signed-off-by: Mehdi Djait <mehdi.djait.k@gmail.com>  
> > 
> > Nothing much specific to this patch, most changes will be as a result
> > of bringing this inline with the changes suggested for patch 2.
> > 
> > thanks,
> > 
> > Jonathan  
> > >  
> > > diff --git a/drivers/iio/accel/kionix-kx022a.h b/drivers/iio/accel/kionix-kx022a.h
> > > index 3bb40e9f5613..7e43bdb37156 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/iio/accel/kionix-kx022a.h
> > > +++ b/drivers/iio/accel/kionix-kx022a.h
> > > @@ -90,8 +90,61 @@
> > >  #define KX022A_REG_SELF_TEST	0x60
> > >  #define KX022A_MAX_REGISTER	0x60
> > >  
> > > +  
> > 
> > Push these down into the c file.  
> 
> Do you mean all REG and MASK defines ? 
> Even kx022a defines them in the h file, or am I misunderstanding your
> comment ?

Hmm. Generally we only put reg defines in a header if they
are accessed from multiple c files. Otherwise it's both noise and more
code that has to be parsed when compiling (even if it's all unused / ignored).

I'm fine with this patch set just continuing with local style given they
are already there, but if you fancy moving the existing ones down to the C file
as a precursor patch, then even better!

> 
> >   
> > > +#define KX132_REG_WHO		0x13
> > > +#define KX132_ID		0x3d
> > > +
> > > +#define KX132_FIFO_LENGTH	86
> > > +
> > > +#define KX132_REG_CNTL2		0x1c
> > > +#define KX132_REG_CNTL		0x1b
> > > +#define KX132_MASK_RES		BIT(6)
> > > +#define KX132_GSEL_2		0x0
> > > +#define KX132_GSEL_4		BIT(3)
> > > +#define KX132_GSEL_8		BIT(4)
> > > +#define KX132_GSEL_16		GENMASK(4, 3)
> > > +
> > > +#define KX132_REG_INS2		0x17
> > > +#define KX132_MASK_INS2_WMI	BIT(5)
> > > +
> > > +#define KX132_REG_XADP_L	0x02
> > > +#define KX132_REG_XOUT_L	0x08
> > > +#define KX132_REG_YOUT_L	0x0a
> > > +#define KX132_REG_ZOUT_L	0x0c
> > > +#define KX132_REG_COTR		0x12
> > > +#define KX132_REG_TSCP		0x14
> > > +#define KX132_REG_INT_REL	0x1a
> > > +
> > > +#define KX132_REG_ODCNTL	0x21
> > > +
> > > +#define KX132_REG_BTS_WUF_TH	0x4a
> > > +#define KX132_REG_MAN_WAKE	0x4d
> > > +
> > > +#define KX132_REG_BUF_CNTL1	0x5e
> > > +#define KX132_REG_BUF_CNTL2	0x5f
> > > +#define KX132_REG_BUF_STATUS_1	0x60
> > > +#define KX132_REG_BUF_STATUS_2	0x61
> > > +#define KX132_MASK_BUF_SMP_LVL	GENMASK(9, 0)
> > > +#define KX132_REG_BUF_CLEAR	0x62
> > > +#define KX132_REG_BUF_READ	0x63
> > > +#define KX132_ODR_SHIFT		3
> > > +#define KX132_FIFO_MAX_WMI_TH	86
> > > +
> > > +#define KX132_REG_INC1		0x22
> > > +#define KX132_REG_INC5		0x26
> > > +#define KX132_REG_INC6		0x27
> > > +#define KX132_IPOL_LOW		0
> > > +#define KX132_IPOL_HIGH		KX_MASK_IPOL
> > > +#define KX132_ITYP_PULSE	KX_MASK_ITYP
> > > +
> > > +#define KX132_REG_INC4		0x25
> > > +
> > > +#define KX132_REG_SELF_TEST	0x5d
> > > +#define KX132_MAX_REGISTER	0x76
> > > +
> > >  enum kx022a_device_type {
> > >  	KX022A,
> > > +	KX132,  
> > As mentioned in previous review, I think this would be neater
> > done by just exporting the chip_info structures directly rather than
> > putting them in an array.  
> 
> I gave the reason in a response to the previous review.

If you strongly prefer the enum indexing array that's fine, but
definitely don't use the enum for the data in the tables - that should
be the pointer to the particular element of the array.
> 
> --
> Kind Regards
> Mehdi Djait