From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-out.m-online.net ([212.18.0.9]:56854 "EHLO mail-out.m-online.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751762Ab3GSQOQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Jul 2013 12:14:16 -0400 From: Marek Vasut To: Hector Palacios Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] iio: mxs-lradc: add scale attribute to channels Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 18:14:15 +0200 Cc: "linux-iio@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org" , "alexandre.belloni@free-electrons.com" , "jic23@kernel.org" , "lars@metafoo.de" , "fabio.estevam@freescale.com" References: <1374225208-28940-1-git-send-email-hector.palacios@digi.com> <201307191630.17149.marex@denx.de> <51E95EF1.4040503@digi.com> In-Reply-To: <51E95EF1.4040503@digi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: <201307191814.15491.marex@denx.de> Sender: linux-iio-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-iio@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