Re: [PATCH v6 3/3] iio: proximity: Add driver support for TYHX's HX9023S capacitive proximity sensor

[Yasin Lee <yasin.lee.x@gmail.com>]

On 2024/6/23 19:56, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 15:40:51 +0800
> Yasin Lee <yasin.lee.x@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> A SAR sensor from NanjingTianyihexin Electronics Ltd.
>>
>> The device has the following entry points:
>>
>> Usual frequency:
>> - sampling_frequency
>>
>> Instant reading of current values for different sensors:
>> - in_proximity0_raw
>> - in_proximity1_raw
>> - in_proximity2_raw
>> - in_proximity3_raw
>> - in_proximity4_raw
>> and associated events in events/
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Yasin Lee <yasin.lee.x@gmail.com>
> Hi Yasin,
>
> Some good reviews in already for this version, so I only took a quick look
> this time. It seems to be in a reasonable state now.
>
> Jonathan


Hi Jonathan,

Thank you for your very patient guidance. I have updated according to 
each reviewer's suggestions.

Best regards,

Yasin
>> diff --git a/drivers/iio/proximity/hx9023s.c b/drivers/iio/proximity/hx9023s.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000000..1d8cb9a05d8a
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/drivers/iio/proximity/hx9023s.c
>>
>> +struct hx9023s_data {
>> +	struct iio_trigger *trig;
>> +	struct regmap *regmap;
>> +	unsigned long chan_prox_stat;
>> +	unsigned long chan_read;
>> +	unsigned long chan_event;
>> +	unsigned long ch_en_stat;
>> +	unsigned long chan_in_use;
>> +	unsigned int prox_state_reg;
>> +	bool trigger_enabled;
>> +
>> +	struct {
>> +		__le16 channels[HX9023S_CH_NUM];
>> +		s64 ts __aligned(8);
>> +	} buffer;
>> +
>> +	struct mutex mutex;
> Add a comment explaining the data this mutex is protecting
> (that may be in this structure, or for example on the device)


Done, you will see this comment in V7.


>> +	struct hx9023s_ch_data ch_data[HX9023S_CH_NUM];
>> +};
>
>> +
>> +static int hx9023s_sample(struct hx9023s_data *data)
>> +{
> ...
>> +
>> +	for (i = 0; i < HX9023S_CH_NUM; i++) {
>> +		value = get_unaligned_le16(&rx_buf[i * data_size + 1]);
>> +		value = sign_extend32(value, 15);
>> +		data->ch_data[i].lp = 0;
>> +		data->ch_data[i].diff = 0;
>> +		if (data->ch_data[i].sel_lp == true)
>> +			data->ch_data[i].lp = value;
>> +		if (data->ch_data[i].sel_diff == true)
>>
> Run checkpatch.pl --strict and it will probably moan about these.
> if (data->ch_data[i].sel_diff) is the same thing so just use that.


Done, and I have fixed the issues identified by the script.