From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pl0-f67.google.com ([209.85.160.67]:37437 "EHLO mail-pl0-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727835AbeHVOIj (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Aug 2018 10:08:39 -0400 Received: by mail-pl0-f67.google.com with SMTP id c6-v6so709845pls.4 for ; Wed, 22 Aug 2018 03:44:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2018 16:14:05 +0530 From: Himanshu Jha To: David Frey Cc: linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, jic23@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] iio: chemical: bme680: Remove field value defines Message-ID: <20180822104405.GA26015@himanshu-Vostro-3559> References: <20180819201439.30d318c7@archlinux> <20180820173959.22380-1-dpfrey@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20180820173959.22380-1-dpfrey@gmail.com> Sender: linux-iio-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-iio@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 10:39:59AM -0700, David Frey wrote: > Remove BME680_RUN_GAS_EN_BIT and BME680_NB_CONV_0_VAL field value > definitions because the fields are simply boolean and integer > respectively. > > Signed-off-by: David Frey Reviewed-by: Himanshu Jha Tested-by: Himanshu Jha > --- > This patch applies on top of my "indent #defines consistently" v3 patch. > Appologies if I should have submitted this patch in a different way. If > I should have submitted this differently, I would appreciate a pointer > on what I should have done in this case. This applies cleanly so no worries I guess. Would have been better to send this patch as a separate thread since thread becomes complex and its hard to find the new patch in the nested series of replies. > BME680_RUN_GAS_EN_BIT was indeed somewhat wrongly formatted, but the > issue was not the indentation level, but rather that I should have > followed immediately after BME680_RUN_GAS_MASK. Once I moved it there, > I realized that neither this definition nor BME680_NB_CONV_0_VAL really > added any value and hence I removed both in this patch. My main intention was to make it explicit that we are selected NB_CONV_0 set point, and I didn't knew about FIELD_PREP helper macro until you pointed me out in the early review cycle. Now, it is much appropriate. Thanks -- Himanshu Jha Undergraduate Student Department of Electronics & Communication Guru Tegh Bahadur Institute of Technology