From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:58262 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726412AbeHYLwf (ORCPT ); Sat, 25 Aug 2018 07:52:35 -0400 Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2018 09:14:24 +0100 From: Jonathan Cameron To: Himanshu Jha Cc: David Frey , linux-iio@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] iio: chemical: bme680: Remove field value defines Message-ID: <20180825091424.75ddad60@archlinux> In-Reply-To: <20180822104405.GA26015@himanshu-Vostro-3559> References: <20180819201439.30d318c7@archlinux> <20180820173959.22380-1-dpfrey@gmail.com> <20180822104405.GA26015@himanshu-Vostro-3559> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-iio-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-iio@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 22 Aug 2018 16:14:05 +0530 Himanshu Jha wrote: > 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 Applied to the togreg branch of iio.git and pushed out as testing for the autobuilders to play with it. Thanks, Jonathan > > > --- > > 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