From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 56E8D258CD0; Sun, 7 Dec 2025 13:04:21 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1765112661; cv=none; b=uRjwIJIcVYdNy8/2FDF9ukF6baLi+xi53FnTrUOr5iLFD2X2CSKRmeXaUdqNIraDfabFrzpAEsbggFIbFfY/l5FCkLFAwOtVorBqLNlq+wN5mPKhi2qNfVwLihI2A7KXR6fCUZpkSHSxtmJAXzB2wyhteMAh2Tw29n3vniNfERw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1765112661; c=relaxed/simple; bh=NG8AZ59BvxDnDGnldyrX84vKVhO5p8DjyUamRyYRs94=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=G64ZQ7ZrkM60UCPsp4Rhm5tDsZhkSzOq2UyWR2UYH4yhl6pQGv4GBXfonOn+SW43VndoabgWKmn8SF+VQonOfrCRdUVf3cJfqlzDfXWSwkJtGbPWYd7q2o3tIxUOYStNn4uLI/vM3nvPuIvtyzDvKh19VAf5diYJ85Lvw05QYzc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=DcyfrkXd; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="DcyfrkXd" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DCD94C4CEFB; Sun, 7 Dec 2025 13:04:16 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1765112660; bh=NG8AZ59BvxDnDGnldyrX84vKVhO5p8DjyUamRyYRs94=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=DcyfrkXdfjdwfw9uQ7GprG0GVkuJdj5yLIV1nIjjdBN1LslWtk6j39HVg8tnQoSiU /Qj09Ae51EasP/Kd9bAwGFT0zQG6Sr9xC8Wgi2csPFys51lqMBWF3Bw/II7/vW/yOS EnqHdXb9kon/83rCXD5m7ccMk6Kik+9f6I0iM82yuJ3X9UgFN+Cr/A64bTtPt1xv5m DdstAjkon162jVptRagLgEKXayWGdj72j+paQnYKGPUheh7ike/ZizgmzAGCqv9qOU eQfk1znZiDZ3CrS7YIJBTEJ2G6Z9HEGaHQqKTl97FnjGkzeKASAfwf+DC59l7ilkRZ HPTlLsl2+cj4A== Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2025 13:04:11 +0000 From: Jonathan Cameron To: Andy Shevchenko Cc: Tomas Melin , Lars-Peter Clausen , Michael Hennerich , Nuno Sa , David Lechner , Andy Shevchenko , Alexandru Ardelean , Jonathan Cameron , linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] iio: adc: ad9467: support write/read offset Message-ID: <20251207130411.5b0d7a0f@jic23-huawei> In-Reply-To: References: <20251202-ad9434-fixes-v2-0-fa73d4eabbea@vaisala.com> <20251202-ad9434-fixes-v2-2-fa73d4eabbea@vaisala.com> <4a64c388-f141-4998-96e0-f6840d70f139@vaisala.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.3.1 (GTK 3.24.51; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 3 Dec 2025 11:04:08 +0200 Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Wed, Dec 03, 2025 at 09:28:23AM +0200, Tomas Melin wrote: > > On 02/12/2025 17:01, Tomas Melin wrote: > > > On 02/12/2025 16:11, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > >> On Tue, Dec 02, 2025 at 12:53:09PM +0000, Tomas Melin wrote: > > ... > > > >>> static const struct iio_chan_spec ad9434_channels[] = { > > >>> - AD9467_CHAN(0, BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_SCALE), 0, 12, 's'), > > >>> + { > > >>> + .type = IIO_VOLTAGE, > > >>> + .indexed = 1, > > >>> + .channel = 0, > > >>> + .info_mask_shared_by_type = > > >>> + BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_SCALE) | > > >>> + BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_SAMP_FREQ) | > > >>> + BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_CALIBBIAS), > > >> > > >> Wrong indentation. > > > > > > Can you please provide example of your preferred indentation for this > > > particular case? This is used in several places around the code and > > > seemed like one of the more readable. > > > > Would this be the preferred indentation? > > Almost LGTM, thanks. > > > { > > .type = IIO_VOLTAGE, > > .indexed = 1, > > .channel = 0, > > .info_mask_shared_by_type = BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_SCALE) | > > BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_SAMP_FREQ) | > > BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_CALIBBIAS), > > .info_mask_shared_by_type_available = > > BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_SCALE) | > > BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_CALIBBIAS), > > .info_mask_shared_by_type_available = BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_SCALE) | > BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_CALIBBIAS), > > It's still less than 80. > > _OR_ > > rake the style consistent with the second one > > .info_mask_shared_by_type = > BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_SCALE) | > BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_SAMP_FREQ) | > BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_CALIBBIAS), > > But I dunno which one is preferred. These two are fine with me. For the record, either of these is fine with me too. Pick one option and use it consistently for similar elements. > > > .scan_index = 0, > > .scan_type = { > > .sign = 's', > > .realbits = 12, > > .storagebits = 16, > > }, > > }, > > > >>> + .info_mask_shared_by_type_available = > > >>> + BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_SCALE) | > > >>> + BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_CALIBBIAS), > > >> > > >> Ditto. > > >> > > >>> + .scan_index = 0, > > >>> + .scan_type = { > > >>> + .sign = 's', > > >>> + .realbits = 12, > > >>> + .storagebits = 16, > > >>> + }, > > >>> + }, > > >>> }; >