RE: [PATCH v9 2/2] iio: adc: max14001: New driver

["Paller, Kim Seer" <KimSeer.Paller@analog.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
> Sent: Monday, July 10, 2023 6:50 PM
> To: Paller, Kim Seer <KimSeer.Paller@analog.com>; Hennerich, Michael
> <Michael.Hennerich@analog.com>
> Cc: linux-iio <linux-iio@vger.kernel.org>; Jonathan Cameron
> <jic23@kernel.org>; Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 2/2] iio: adc: max14001: New driver
> 
> [External]
> 
> Return to the public space of the discussion.

Oh late to notice, I had mistakenly set my email client to "quick reply" 
instead of 'reply to all'.

> On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 11:17 AM Paller, Kim Seer
> <KimSeer.Paller@analog.com> wrote:
> > > From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
> > > Sent: Monday, July 10, 2023 3:37 PM
> > > On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 7:27 AM Kim Seer Paller
> <kimseer.paller@analog.com>
> > > wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
> > > > V8 -> V9: Changed SPI buffer data types to __le16,
> > >
> > > Why?
> >
> > Based on the previous comments, I have taken the __le16 data type
> > into account. The device seems to function the same as the __be data type.
> > I have not yet sure but technically speaking, do I have to retain the data
> > types as __be16 based on the overall operation?
> 
> If the type is __be, the *be*() APIs should be used, otherwise __le and *le*().

I became a little confused with the previous discussions, will make the 
necessary changes accordingly.

> > > Obviously it's incorrect now even more than before.
> > > The types are defined as __le, while ops are against __be.
> >
> > Would it be right to implement this by reverting the types back to __be?
> > What other considerations could there be?
> 
> First of all, you need to document what you are doing with these bit
> twiddlers. Based on the clear understanding by everyone we can suggest
> what data type(s) suits the best.
> 
> Hence instead of v10, reply with a draft of the comment in the code (I
> have asked before) that explains these bit twiddlers.

In patch v9, regarding with my bit arrangement comments, is it somewhat correct 
or do I need to totally replace it? 

I am not yet familiar with the terminologies, so I hope you can provide some 
suggestions and I'll definitely send the draft first.

Thanks,
Kim