Re: [PATCH v5 4/7] iio: pressure: bmp280: Use sleep and forced mode for oneshot captures

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

On Wed, Sep 04, 2024 at 12:24:27PM +0200, Vasileios Amoiridis wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 03, 2024 at 05:26:38PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 02, 2024 at 08:42:19PM +0200, Vasileios Amoiridis wrote:

...

> > > +	if (!(reg & BMP380_STATUS_DRDY_PRESS_MASK) ||
> > > +	    !(reg & BMP380_STATUS_DRDY_TEMP_MASK)) {
> > > +		dev_err(data->dev, "Measurement cycle didn't complete.\n");
> > > +		return -EBUSY;
> > > +	}
> > 
> > Alternatively
> > 
> > 	if (!((reg & BMP380_STATUS_DRDY_PRESS_MASK) &&
> > 	    !(reg & BMP380_STATUS_DRDY_TEMP_MASK)) {
> > 		dev_err(data->dev, "Measurement cycle didn't complete.\n");
> > 		return -EBUSY;
> > 	}
> 
> Why would I use && instead of || ? I just need one of the 2 to be true
> (one of the 2 measurements is not complete) and I can trigger the error
> action.

Oh, I messed up the logic inversion, but wouldn't it be simpler to read
"we return busy if neither press nor temp drdy bit set"?

	if (!((reg & BMP380_STATUS_DRDY_PRESS_MASK) && (reg & BMP380_STATUS_DRDY_TEMP_MASK))) {
		dev_err(data->dev, "Measurement cycle didn't complete.\n");
		return -EBUSY;
	}

(I left long line for the better understanding of my point, you may break it to
 two if needed)

With that, you even may have

#define BMP380_STATUS_DRDY_PRESS_AND_TEMP_MASK ...

	if (!(reg & BMP380_STATUS_DRDY_PRESS_AND_TEMP_MASK)) {
		dev_err(data->dev, "Measurement cycle didn't complete.\n");
		return -EBUSY;
	}

which makes it all obvious.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko