From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marek Vasut Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] iio: mxs-lradc: add scale attribute to channels Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 18:14:15 +0200 Message-ID: <201307191814.15491.marex@denx.de> References: <1374225208-28940-1-git-send-email-hector.palacios@digi.com> <201307191630.17149.marex@denx.de> <51E95EF1.4040503@digi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <51E95EF1.4040503-i7dp0qKlBMg@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-iio-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Hector Palacios Cc: "linux-iio-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org" , "alexandre.belloni-wi1+55ScJUtKEb57/3fJTNBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org" , "jic23-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org" , "lars-Qo5EllUWu/uELgA04lAiVw@public.gmane.org" , "fabio.estevam-KZfg59tc24xl57MIdRCFDg@public.gmane.org" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Dear Hector Palacios, > Dear Marek, > > On 07/19/2013 04:30 PM, Marek Vasut wrote: > >> @@ -228,39 +230,12 @@ struct mxs_lradc { > >> > >> #define LRADC_RESOLUTION 12 > >> #define LRADC_SINGLE_SAMPLE_MASK ((1 << LRADC_RESOLUTION) - 1) > >> > >> -/* > >> - * Raw I/O operations > >> - */ > >> -static int mxs_lradc_read_raw(struct iio_dev *iio_dev, > >> +static int mxs_lradc_read_single(struct iio_dev *iio_dev, > >> > >> const struct iio_chan_spec *chan, > >> int *val, int *val2, long m) > >> > >> { > >> > >> struct mxs_lradc *lradc = iio_priv(iio_dev); > >> int ret; > >> > >> - unsigned long mask; > >> - > >> - if (m != IIO_CHAN_INFO_RAW) > >> - return -EINVAL; > >> - > >> - /* Check for invalid channel */ > >> - if (chan->channel > LRADC_MAX_TOTAL_CHANS) > >> - return -EINVAL; > > > > This was already resolved, so this patch won't apply I'm afraid. > > You mean the 'unsigned long mask', right? Yeah, I think I had resolved > that one before submitting, but looks like I didn't. > The other check is not resolved afaik. We agreed to remove it, but on a > different patch. I mean the other check, yeah. A patch removing that should be applied already. Best regards, Marek Vasut