From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hector Palacios Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/5] iio: mxs-lradc: add scale_available file to channels Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 15:25:25 +0200 Message-ID: <51EE8445.6070603@digi.com> References: <1374501843-19651-1-git-send-email-hector.palacios@digi.com> <1374501843-19651-5-git-send-email-hector.palacios@digi.com> <51EE4300.7070802@metafoo.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <51EE4300.7070802-Qo5EllUWu/uELgA04lAiVw@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-iio-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Lars-Peter Clausen 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" , "fabio.estevam-KZfg59tc24xl57MIdRCFDg@public.gmane.org" , "marex-ynQEQJNshbs@public.gmane.org" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Dear Lars, On 07/23/2013 10:46 AM, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote: > On 07/22/2013 04:04 PM, Hector Palacios wrote: > [...] >> >> +static ssize_t mxs_lradc_show_scale_available_ch(struct device *dev, >> + struct device_attribute *attr, >> + char *buf, >> + int ch) >> +{ >> + struct iio_dev *iio = dev_to_iio_dev(dev); >> + struct mxs_lradc *lradc = iio_priv(iio); >> + int i, len = 0; >> + >> + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(lradc->scale_avail[ch]); i++) >> + len += sprintf(buf + len, "%d.%09u ", >> + lradc->scale_avail[ch][i].integer, >> + lradc->scale_avail[ch][i].nano); >> + >> + len += sprintf(buf + len, "\n"); >> + >> + return len; >> +} >> + >> +static ssize_t mxs_lradc_show_scale_available(struct device *dev, >> + struct device_attribute *attr, >> + char *buf) >> +{ >> + struct iio_dev_attr *iio_attr = to_iio_dev_attr(attr); >> + >> + return mxs_lradc_show_scale_available_ch(dev, attr, buf, >> + iio_attr->address); >> +} >> + >> +#define SHOW_SCALE_AVAILABLE_ATTR(ch) \ >> +static IIO_DEVICE_ATTR(in_voltage##ch##_scale_available, S_IRUGO, \ >> + mxs_lradc_show_scale_available, NULL, ch) >> + >> +SHOW_SCALE_AVAILABLE_ATTR(0); >> +SHOW_SCALE_AVAILABLE_ATTR(1); >> +SHOW_SCALE_AVAILABLE_ATTR(2); >> +SHOW_SCALE_AVAILABLE_ATTR(3); >> +SHOW_SCALE_AVAILABLE_ATTR(4); >> +SHOW_SCALE_AVAILABLE_ATTR(5); >> +SHOW_SCALE_AVAILABLE_ATTR(6); >> +SHOW_SCALE_AVAILABLE_ATTR(7); >> +SHOW_SCALE_AVAILABLE_ATTR(8); >> +SHOW_SCALE_AVAILABLE_ATTR(9); >> +SHOW_SCALE_AVAILABLE_ATTR(10); >> +SHOW_SCALE_AVAILABLE_ATTR(11); >> +SHOW_SCALE_AVAILABLE_ATTR(12); >> +SHOW_SCALE_AVAILABLE_ATTR(13); >> +SHOW_SCALE_AVAILABLE_ATTR(14); >> +SHOW_SCALE_AVAILABLE_ATTR(15); >> + >> +static struct attribute *mxs_lradc_attributes[] = { >> + &iio_dev_attr_in_voltage0_scale_available.dev_attr.attr, >> + &iio_dev_attr_in_voltage1_scale_available.dev_attr.attr, >> + &iio_dev_attr_in_voltage2_scale_available.dev_attr.attr, >> + &iio_dev_attr_in_voltage3_scale_available.dev_attr.attr, >> + &iio_dev_attr_in_voltage4_scale_available.dev_attr.attr, >> + &iio_dev_attr_in_voltage5_scale_available.dev_attr.attr, >> + &iio_dev_attr_in_voltage6_scale_available.dev_attr.attr, >> + &iio_dev_attr_in_voltage7_scale_available.dev_attr.attr, >> + &iio_dev_attr_in_voltage8_scale_available.dev_attr.attr, >> + &iio_dev_attr_in_voltage9_scale_available.dev_attr.attr, >> + &iio_dev_attr_in_voltage10_scale_available.dev_attr.attr, >> + &iio_dev_attr_in_voltage11_scale_available.dev_attr.attr, >> + &iio_dev_attr_in_voltage12_scale_available.dev_attr.attr, >> + &iio_dev_attr_in_voltage13_scale_available.dev_attr.attr, >> + &iio_dev_attr_in_voltage14_scale_available.dev_attr.attr, >> + &iio_dev_attr_in_voltage15_scale_available.dev_attr.attr, >> + NULL >> +}; > > This should really be using the iio_chan_spec_ext_info infrastructure. Bonus > points for factoring out the common code used to calculate and display the > scales. I perfectly understand. Sadly, I don't currently have the time and expertise to try to work this out the proper way. It already took much longer than expected to have this driver toggle a divider flag. I'd appreciate if anyone wishes to complete this job. @Alexander, please feel free to submit your other temp patch without waiting for this one. Best regards, -- Hector Palacios