Re: [PATCH 8/9] iio: imu: st_lsm6dsx: add event configurability on a per axis basis

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

On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 12:01:57PM +0100, Francesco Lavra wrote:
> On Tue, 2025-11-18 at 11:44 +0100, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 17, 2025 at 08:23:35PM +0100, Francesco Lavra wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2025-10-30 at 15:56 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Oct 30, 2025 at 12:23:19PM +0100, Francesco Lavra wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, 2025-10-30 at 10:24 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, Oct 30, 2025 at 08:27:51AM +0100, Francesco Lavra wrote:

...

> > > > > > > +       old_enable = hw->enable_event[event];
> > > > > > > +       new_enable = state ? (old_enable | BIT(axis)) :
> > > > > > > (old_enable
> > > > > > > &
> > > > > > > ~BIT(axis));
> > > > > > > +       if (!!old_enable == !!new_enable)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > This is an interesting check. So, old_enable and new_enable are
> > > > > > _not_
> > > > > > booleans, right?
> > > > > > So, this means the check test if _any_ of the bit was set and
> > > > > > kept
> > > > > > set or
> > > > > > none were set
> > > > > > and non is going to be set. Correct? I think a short comment
> > > > > > would be
> > > > > > good to have.
> > > > > 
> > > > > old_enable and new_enable are bit masks, but we are only interested
> > > > > in
> > > > > whether any bit is set, to catch the cases where the bit mask goes
> > > > > from
> > > > > zero to non-zero and vice versa. Will add a comment.
> > > > 
> > > > If it's a true bitmask (assuming unsigned long type) then all this
> > > > can be
> > > > done
> > > > via bitmap API calls. Otherwise you can also compare a Hamming
> > > > weights of
> > > > them
> > > > (probably that gives even the same size of the object file, but !!
> > > > instructions
> > > >  will be changed to hweight() calls (still a single assembly instr on
> > > > modern
> > > >  architectures).
> > > 
> > > These are u8 variables, so we can't use the bitmap API.
> > 
> > OK. But hweight8() can still be used.
> > 
> > > And I don't
> > > understand the reason for using hweight(), given that the !! operators
> > > would still be needed.
> > 
> > No, you won't need !! with that.
> 
> I still don't understand. Are you proposing to replace `if (!!old_enable ==
> !!new_enable)` with `if (hweight8(old_enable) == hweight8(new_enable))`?
> That won't work, because we only need to check whether the Hamming weight
> goes from zero to non-zero and vice versa.

       old_enable = hw->enable_event[event];
       new_enable = state ? (old_enable | BIT(axis)) :
                            (old_enable & ~BIT(axis));
       if (!!old_enable == !!new_enable)
               return 0;

If I am not mistaken this will do exactly the same in a simpler way.

	old_enable = hw->enable_event[event];
	if (state)
		new_enable = old_enable | BIT(axis);
	else
		new_enable = old_enable & ~BIT(axis);
	if ((new_enable ^ old_enable) != BIT(axis))
		return 0;


-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko