From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hector Palacios Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] iio: mxs-lradc: add scale attribute to channels Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 09:22:07 +0200 Message-ID: <51ECDD9F.4080506@digi.com> References: <1374225208-28940-1-git-send-email-hector.palacios@digi.com> <201307191630.17149.marex@denx.de> <51E95EF1.4040503@digi.com> <201307191814.15491.marex@denx.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <201307191814.15491.marex-ynQEQJNshbs@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-iio-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Marek Vasut 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 Hi Marek, On 07/19/2013 06:14 PM, Marek Vasut wrote: > 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. Where exactly? It's not fixed in Jonathan's fixes-togreg branch, at least. Did you fixed it? Best regards, -- Hector Palacios