RE: [PATCH v14 3/3] Input: new da7280 haptic driver

[Roy Im <roy.im.opensource@diasemi.com>]

> On Fri, June 26, 2020 3:19 PM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello,
> from the PWM POV I'm happy now. Just a few minor comments that I noticed while checking the PWM details.

Many thanks for your comments.

> 
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 01:59:29AM +0900, Roy Im wrote:
> > +		val = haptics->ps_seq_id << DA7280_PS_SEQ_ID_SHIFT |
> > +			haptics->ps_seq_loop << DA7280_PS_SEQ_LOOP_SHIFT;
> 
> If you write this as:
> 
> 	val = FIELD_PREP(DA7280_PS_SEQ_ID_MASK, haptics->ps_seq_id) |
> 		FIELD_PREP(DA7280_PS_SEQ_LOOP_MASK, haptics->ps_seq_loop);
> 
> you get some additional checks for free and can drop all defines for ..._SHIFT .

It is not difficult to update that as you advise, but I think having the shift there explicitly makes it more readable, so most of the drivers from my team have the defines(shift) up to now. I guess this is a kind of subjective thing. 
Do you think it is still necessary? Then I will update as you said.

> 
> > +static u8 da7280_haptic_of_gpi_pol_str(struct device *dev,
> > +				       const char *str)
> > +{
> > +	if (!strcmp(str, "Rising-edge"))
> > +		return 0;
> > +	else if (!strcmp(str, "Falling-edge"))
> > +		return 1;
> > +	else if (!strcmp(str, "Both-edge"))
> > +		return 2;
> > +
> > +	dev_warn(dev, "Invalid string - set to default\n");
> 
> Maybe mention "Rising-edge" being the default?

OK, I will change them to be clear.

> 
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> 
> Best regards
> Uwe
> 
> --
> Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
> Industrial Linux Solutions                 | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |