From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fgw21-7.mail.saunalahti.fi (fgw21-7.mail.saunalahti.fi [62.142.5.82]) (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 01DBA2905 for ; Sun, 20 Apr 2025 19:45:19 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=62.142.5.82 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1745178321; cv=none; b=rjCSqCD1IVs7gSGEIwnG50q/0Wcke73m9B5xnViMwcTM18H6MQIzG8zZKNTqv6lbOd54RMkdZx1XRrStDxT2v2GZqGbncH2WT7N66zK43/UD12pziCv3LF900Nrsb2jnpWUsc7Wkeh5TRfaJ1SvM23G1e4g50mV/aqPC/eM6gS8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1745178321; c=relaxed/simple; bh=vJdBOf82Iy5iMcvXU5YCcDimg9KUr1N7wqDkB08AQLQ=; h=From:Date:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=R39j6/cre0bCxNv4n6qIdVtS7trfdPAdTPZViQlMgdT8nLMQGzfFEWVlB+577ARhmFQRfbDSbksCkIkqj8HhjaQfKBDhcOVzfAhq5BchpT786N1YwTI6+386LTB308Xv91cCxiPNj1CQUJOR4FKNA8Ng4/foO2+X/ClTN7dqK1c= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=62.142.5.82 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Received: from localhost (88-113-26-232.elisa-laajakaista.fi [88.113.26.232]) by fgw20.mail.saunalahti.fi (Halon) with ESMTP id f826c47b-1e1f-11f0-ac2f-005056bd6ce9; Sun, 20 Apr 2025 22:45:12 +0300 (EEST) From: Andy Shevchenko Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2025 22:45:10 +0300 To: Yu-Hsian Yang Cc: Andy Shevchenko , jic23@kernel.org, lars@metafoo.de, robh@kernel.org, krzk+dt@kernel.org, conor+dt@kernel.org, dlechner@baylibre.com, nuno.sa@analog.com, javier.carrasco.cruz@gmail.com, gstols@baylibre.com, alisadariana@gmail.com, tgamblin@baylibre.com, olivier.moysan@foss.st.com, antoniu.miclaus@analog.com, eblanc@baylibre.com, joao.goncalves@toradex.com, tobias.sperling@softing.com, marcelo.schmitt@analog.com, angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com, thomas.bonnefille@bootlin.com, herve.codina@bootlin.com, chanh@os.amperecomputing.com, KWLIU@nuvoton.com, yhyang2@nuvoton.com, linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] iio: adc: add support for Nuvoton NCT7201 Message-ID: References: <20250416081734.563111-1-j2anfernee@gmail.com> <20250416081734.563111-3-j2anfernee@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=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: Sun, Apr 20, 2025 at 09:03:05PM +0800, Yu-Hsian Yang kirjoitti: > Andy Shevchenko 於 2025年4月16日 週三 下午5:34寫道： > > On Wed, Apr 16, 2025 at 04:17:34PM +0800, Eason Yang wrote: ... > > > +#define NCT7201_REG_VIN(i) (i) > > > > This doesn't do anything useful. Why do you need this rather useless macro? > > > > Actually here we should define NCT7201_REG_VIN(i) as (0x00 + i), > We simply it as (i). Please, don't. Use the full form which makes a big difference to the perception of this macro. ... > > > +struct nct7201_chip_info { > > > + struct device *dev; > > > > This can be derived from the respective regmap. No need to have it here. > > > > > + struct regmap *regmap; > > > + struct regmap *regmap16; > > > + int num_vin_channels; > > > + u16 vin_mask; > > > +}; > > Use regmap->dev is okay if use regmap API. No, you are not supposed to use regmap->dev (and you can't), you need to call a getter API and get the device pointer. > But if we need to print message not from regmap API, I don't get this. What do you mean? The example you showed prints a message for the device. The same device that was used to create a regmap. > how suggestions to do in this case? Use the one that you can retrieve from regmap. ... So, you have commented on some with agreement, and left uncommented a lot. Does it mean you are agree on all points? The rule of thumb do not comment on the cases you are fully agree with. Current email just makes a confusion. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko