Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] iio: adc: xilinx-ams: refactor alarm mapping to table-driven approach

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

On Tue, Apr 14, 2026 at 07:29:19AM -0300, Guilherme Ivo Bozi wrote:
> Replace multiple open-coded switch statements that map between
> scan_index, alarm bits, and register offsets with a centralized
> table-driven approach.
> 
> Introduce a struct-based alarm_map to describe the relationship
> between scan indices and alarm offsets, and add a helper to
> translate scan_index to event IDs. This removes duplicated logic
> across ams_get_alarm_offset(), ams_event_to_channel(), and
> ams_get_alarm_mask().
> 
> The new approach improves maintainability, reduces code size,
> and makes it easier to extend or modify alarm mappings in the
> future, while preserving existing behavior.

...

> +static const struct ams_alarm_map alarm_map[] = {
> +	[AMS_ALARM_BIT_TEMP] = { AMS_SEQ_TEMP, AMS_ALARM_TEMP },
> +	[AMS_ALARM_BIT_SUPPLY1] = { AMS_SEQ_SUPPLY1, AMS_ALARM_SUPPLY1 },
> +	[AMS_ALARM_BIT_SUPPLY2] = { AMS_SEQ_SUPPLY2, AMS_ALARM_SUPPLY2 },
> +	[AMS_ALARM_BIT_SUPPLY3] = { AMS_SEQ_SUPPLY3, AMS_ALARM_SUPPLY3 },
> +	[AMS_ALARM_BIT_SUPPLY4] = { AMS_SEQ_SUPPLY4, AMS_ALARM_SUPPLY4 },
> +	[AMS_ALARM_BIT_SUPPLY5] = { AMS_SEQ_SUPPLY5, AMS_ALARM_SUPPLY5 },
> +	[AMS_ALARM_BIT_SUPPLY6] = { AMS_SEQ_SUPPLY6, AMS_ALARM_SUPPLY6 },
> +	[AMS_ALARM_BIT_RESERVED] = { 0, AMS_ALARM_NONE },
> +	[AMS_ALARM_BIT_SUPPLY7] = { AMS_SEQ_SUPPLY7, AMS_ALARM_SUPPLY7 },
> +	[AMS_ALARM_BIT_SUPPLY8] = { AMS_SEQ_SUPPLY8, AMS_ALARM_SUPPLY8 },
> +	[AMS_ALARM_BIT_SUPPLY9] = { AMS_SEQ_SUPPLY9, AMS_ALARM_SUPPLY9 },
> +	[AMS_ALARM_BIT_SUPPLY10] = { AMS_SEQ_SUPPLY10, AMS_ALARM_SUPPLY10 },
> +	[AMS_ALARM_BIT_VCCAMS] = { AMS_SEQ_VCCAMS, AMS_ALARM_VCCAMS },
> +	[AMS_ALARM_BIT_TEMP_REMOTE] = { AMS_SEQ_TEMP_REMOTE, AMS_ALARM_TEMP_REMOTE }

Haven't noticed before, please leave a trailing comma here as it is not
semantically a terminator entry.

> +};


-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko