Re: [PATCH v9 6/8] iio: adc: Support ROHM BD79124 ADC

[Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>]

On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 03:41:18PM +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> On 21/03/2025 15:16, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 02:17:16PM +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> > > On 21/03/2025 14:06, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 10:01:00AM +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> > > > > On 20/03/2025 15:16, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 10:22:00AM +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > You can get rid of all of these by simply using __le16. I do not understand why
> > > > it's not used so far. I thought that bits are mirrored, that may explain the
> > > > case, but now I do not see any problem to use __le16 directly.
> > > 
> > > This discussion is going in circles now. That was discussed in the RFC
> > > review with Jonathan, which I did also tell to you during the v7 review:
> > 
> > Yes, because I think we all were confused by the bits representations,
> > but now I see it clearly and I do not understand why should we go the way
> > you suggested as it makes things a bit tangled in my opinion.
> > 
> > Jonathan, do you still think the two separate bytes are better than __le16?
> > If so, what are the pros of this solution?
> 
> I don't think Jonathan thought this is better. I'm not sure if you read the
> RFC conversation.
> 
> I told this is easier for me to understand. Jonathan merely told he can live
> with that. For this particular driver it matters because I'm expecting to be
> maintaining it. It's easier to maintain code which one can understand, and
> if subsystem maintainer can live with it, then I suppose it's the pro you
> are looking for.

What if the maintainer will be hit by a bus? The point is we should also think
for unfamiliar possible maintainers and strange readers.

But sure, not my call right now.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko