From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [198.175.65.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CEB6938FB9; Fri, 21 Mar 2025 13:56:34 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.13 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1742565396; cv=none; b=AW+ROWMZ35Jjfy5v+fMf0S1ygP7jhv93wcn/QfrEInAmXKiOQMqzUwyOZfW71GOuGGj4zyP70Ylm+bMs3Qxp5X+c9dgRF9oHVCi2G1YVxhFGcP2YLgDRhxMObpSIyZkogdQEQz+BMgodOYfhDYfL3BBYN4Kh4eSGUKeuT0FYrUQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1742565396; c=relaxed/simple; bh=/6hOolry5YjNjLNy/ShHrZBxdxC0Ma01QDEqsiQ085w=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=hWLPZSpFe7sNL6Y4KTdOxmsbE6FAiZF9gIy6YKDcY+xUVFvL5fxSTb9TcRVHHdotwGVIboG0Jd9yi/DihpW1RWXnWVSM4/GyaDJV7Ir+5WyLRbyqsAccurqS96WTkZxKJktkTOzjnMJWVu+v5QWeRXXFwiraSeU3H9j8BCh/rlk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=ckgdUaLg; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.13 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="ckgdUaLg" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1742565395; x=1774101395; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=/6hOolry5YjNjLNy/ShHrZBxdxC0Ma01QDEqsiQ085w=; b=ckgdUaLgawgkJ0Owxwa1DQQ7oM6x3k/613/3+hDU0/TtGtVpQW0fkxfF Tlf3fQDuxtXkQMi4hHiPWXCWqTTvqScLK3dC9m1CHRQd53xvXipOA61wo hg+Q2r6Vt5lvq309DtmMoyBNghb63hxEmnkYuZHmE9EpOoXaPfE3dTWq/ UMsqfXc1TxwzSRRG6RZwTht07RTCN4beXVsFKnvq1iTBvqi3KVR2HdAlY SaFf7xJKVnF+TELbPjqrFFElGLku9XnZUtOnBn4iSkGCbU/QcT+gNJBH1 r7RyqFd7C+Rk/QbRm+1LWeY8TLmGRBHiZomJLL2UWYAeyXbMpJGj0srEK Q==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: 3XJD84D2ReCXDc2GTn6AMg== X-CSE-MsgGUID: oSsSBjdvSqqU+Z1uh7leow== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6700,10204,11380"; a="54825447" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.14,264,1736841600"; d="scan'208";a="54825447" Received: from fmviesa007.fm.intel.com ([10.60.135.147]) by orvoesa105.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 21 Mar 2025 06:56:35 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: ka4S3z+hT9WJv3VoUMY3Yw== X-CSE-MsgGUID: nRylWAXSRxK2srXku9UY/w== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.14,264,1736841600"; d="scan'208";a="123386586" Received: from smile.fi.intel.com ([10.237.72.58]) by fmviesa007.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 21 Mar 2025 06:56:30 -0700 Received: from andy by smile.fi.intel.com with local (Exim 4.98) (envelope-from ) id 1tvcrL-00000004Wyz-0nhD; Fri, 21 Mar 2025 15:56:27 +0200 Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2025 15:56:26 +0200 From: Andy Shevchenko To: Matti Vaittinen Cc: Matti Vaittinen , Jonathan Cameron , Lars-Peter Clausen , Nuno Sa , David Lechner , Javier Carrasco , Olivier Moysan , Guillaume Stols , Dumitru Ceclan , Trevor Gamblin , Matteo Martelli , Alisa-Dariana Roman , =?iso-8859-1?Q?Jo=E3o_Paulo_Gon=E7alves?= , AngeloGioacchino Del Regno , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-iio@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 6/8] iio: adc: Support ROHM BD79124 ADC Message-ID: References: <544371135e5ff5647c3cd4bce6d21e1b278ac183.1742457420.git.mazziesaccount@gmail.com> <1e236993-47fc-45e9-913a-e0615787581a@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-iio@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo 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