From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.bemta12.messagelabs.com ([216.82.251.10]:16836 "EHLO mail1.bemta12.messagelabs.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752263Ab3GVHW5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Jul 2013 03:22:57 -0400 Message-ID: <51ECDD9F.4080506@digi.com> Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 09:22:07 +0200 From: Hector Palacios MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Marek Vasut 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" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] iio: mxs-lradc: add scale attribute to channels References: <1374225208-28940-1-git-send-email-hector.palacios@digi.com> <201307191630.17149.marex@denx.de> <51E95EF1.4040503@digi.com> <201307191814.15491.marex@denx.de> In-Reply-To: <201307191814.15491.marex@denx.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Sender: linux-iio-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-iio@vger.kernel.org Hi Marek, On 07/19/2013 06:14 PM, Marek Vasut wrote: > 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. Where exactly? It's not fixed in Jonathan's fixes-togreg branch, at least. Did you fixed it? Best regards, -- Hector Palacios