Re: [PATCH 2/3]iio:pressure:bmp280: cleanup

[Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@gmx.de>]

Vlad Dogaru schrieb am 31.10.2014 12:44:
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 02:23:33AM +0100, Hartmut Knaack wrote:
>> The calculations for temperature and pressure compensation were already slightly
>> optimized in comparison to the data sheet. So, it makes sense to optimize even a
>> bit more, making proper use of C operators:
>>   - variable t in bmp280_compensate_temp() can be eliminated by directly
>>     returning the result of the relevant equation.
>>   - make use of the += operator, eliminate an unnecessary parenthesis level and
>>     directly return the result of the last equation in
>>     bmp280_compensate_press().
>> When the initialization of the ctrl_meas register fails, the error message will
>> now mention the right register name.
>> During probe, i2c_set_clientdata() is called, although it is not necessary. Drop
>> it.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@gmx.de>
>> ---
>> diff --git a/drivers/iio/pressure/bmp280.c b/drivers/iio/pressure/bmp280.c
>> index 75038da..4f6ae4d 100644
>> --- a/drivers/iio/pressure/bmp280.c
>> +++ b/drivers/iio/pressure/bmp280.c
>> @@ -200,7 +200,7 @@ static s32 bmp280_compensate_temp(struct bmp280_data *data,
>>  				  struct bmp280_comp_temp *comp,
>>  				  s32 adc_temp)
>>  {
>> -	s32 var1, var2, t;
>> +	s32 var1, var2;
>>  
>>  	var1 = (((adc_temp >> 3) - ((s32) comp->dig_t1 << 1)) *
>>  		((s32) comp->dig_t2)) >> 11;
>> @@ -209,9 +209,7 @@ static s32 bmp280_compensate_temp(struct bmp280_data *data,
>>  		((s32) comp->dig_t3)) >> 14;
>>  
>>  	data->t_fine = var1 + var2;
>> -	t = (data->t_fine * 5 + 128) >> 8;
>> -
>> -	return t;
>> +	return (data->t_fine * 5 + 128) >> 8;
> 
> Shouldn't the compiler take care of this?
That would be preferable. I just don't see the real benefit in having the extra step of storing the result (and taking care of an extra variable) before returning it. And I am aware, that this calculation is derived from the one in the data sheet (which looks a bit questionable to me with its unnecessary parenthesis and variable). But since you already started optimizing, it seemed legitimate to consolidate it even a bit more.
> 
>>  }
>>  
>>  /*
>> @@ -229,11 +227,11 @@ static u32 bmp280_compensate_press(struct bmp280_data *data,
>>  
>>  	var1 = ((s64) data->t_fine) - 128000;
>>  	var2 = var1 * var1 * (s64) comp->dig_p6;
>> -	var2 = var2 + ((var1 * (s64) comp->dig_p5) << 17);
>> -	var2 = var2 + (((s64) comp->dig_p4) << 35);
>> +	var2 += ((var1 * (s64) comp->dig_p5) << 17);
>> +	var2 += (((s64) comp->dig_p4) << 35);
>>  	var1 = ((var1 * var1 * (s64) comp->dig_p3) >> 8) +
>>  		((var1 * (s64) comp->dig_p2) << 12);
>> -	var1 = (((((s64) 1) << 47) + var1)) * ((s64) comp->dig_p1) >> 33;
>> +	var1 = ((((s64) 1) << 47) + var1) * ((s64) comp->dig_p1) >> 33;
>>  
>>  	if (var1 == 0)
>>  		return 0;
>> @@ -242,9 +240,7 @@ static u32 bmp280_compensate_press(struct bmp280_data *data,
>>  	p = div64_s64(p, var1);
>>  	var1 = (((s64) comp->dig_p9) * (p >> 13) * (p >> 13)) >> 25;
>>  	var2 = (((s64) comp->dig_p8) * p) >> 19;
>> -	p = ((p + var1 + var2) >> 8) + (((s64) comp->dig_p7) << 4);
>> -
>> -	return (u32) p;
>> +	return (u32)((p + var1 + var2) >> 8) + (((s64) comp->dig_p7) << 4);
> 
> And this?
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>