Re: [PATCH v2 2/8] iio: imu: inv_icm45600: add new inv_icm45600 driver

[Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@intel.com>]

On Fri, Jul 11, 2025 at 11:32:48AM +0000, Remi Buisson wrote:
> >From: Andy Shevchenko andriy.shevchenko@intel.com<mailto:andriy.shevchenko@intel.com>
> >Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2025 11:30 AM
> >To: Remi Buisson Remi.Buisson@tdk.com<mailto:Remi.Buisson@tdk.com>
> >On Thu, Jul 10, 2025 at 08:57:57AM +0000, Remi Buisson via B4 Relay wrote:

...

> >> +struct inv_icm45600_sensor_conf {
> >> +       int mode;
> >> +       int fs;
> >> +       int odr;
> >> +       int filter;
> >
> >Any of them can hold negative value?
> 
> Yes, when setting the configuration, a negative value means "keep previous configured value".
> Like in the INV_ICM45600_SENSOR_CONF_INIT macro below.

I see, but can't it be as simple as "big number" with the proper type instead?

#define ..._KEEP_VALUE		U8_MAX // or whatever type

> >> +};

...

> >> +#define INV_ICM45600_SENSOR_CONF_INIT                        {-1, -1, -1, -1}
> >
> >Unused.
> This is used in later patch of the serie.
> I will move this definition to the patch using it.

Yes, unused in this code. You should compile the series incrementally,
so each patch will get a compilation test. This is called compile-time
bisectability. Also run the system each time to confirm no regressions
(this is called run-time bisectability).

...

> >> +                      udelay(INV_ICM45600_IREG_DELAY_US);
> >
> >Can fsleep() be used here?
> I will use fsleep there.
> Is it recommended to use fsleep everywhere else in place of other sleep APIs?

Not everywhere, but in general yes, if in doubt, use it (but the author is
the one who knows their the code and answer to this question).

...

> It's probably safer to keep the delay even in case of failure to make sure
> the device is ready before next operation.

I am not sure about it. Why? This has to be well justified as it's quite
unusual pattern.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko