Re: [PATCH] iio: hid-sensor-prox: Fix invalid read_raw for attention

[srinivas pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>]

On Fri, 2024-11-22 at 08:46 +0100, Ricardo Ribalda wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Nov 2024 at 17:44, srinivas pandruvada
> <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > 
> > On Thu, 2024-11-21 at 09:16 +0000, Ricardo Ribalda wrote:
> > > The attention channel is a IIO_CHAN_INFO_PROCESSED, not a
> > > IIO_CHAN_INFO_RAW.
> > > 
> > > Modify prox_read_raw() to support it.
> > > 
> > What is the sysfs entry to trigger this IIO_CHAN_INFO_PROCESSED
> > read?
> > Don't you have an entry *_raw?
> 
> /sys/.../iio:deviceX/in_attention_input
> 
> There is no _raw device for it.
> 
OK.

> > 
> > > Fixes: 596ef5cf654b ("iio: hid-sensor-prox: Add support for more
> > > channels")
> > > Signed-off-by: Ricardo Ribalda <ribalda@chromium.org>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/iio/light/hid-sensor-prox.c | 4 ++--
> > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/iio/light/hid-sensor-prox.c
> > > b/drivers/iio/light/hid-sensor-prox.c
> > > index e8e7b2999b4c..8e5d0ad13a5f 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/iio/light/hid-sensor-prox.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/iio/light/hid-sensor-prox.c
> > > @@ -94,6 +94,7 @@ static int prox_read_raw(struct iio_dev
> > > *indio_dev,
> > >       *val2 = 0;
> > >       switch (mask) {
> > >       case IIO_CHAN_INFO_RAW:
> > > +     case IIO_CHAN_INFO_PROCESSED:
> > >               if (chan->scan_index >= prox_state->num_channels)
> > >                       return -EINVAL;
> > >               address = prox_state->channel2usage[chan-
> > > > scan_index];
> > > @@ -107,8 +108,7 @@ static int prox_read_raw(struct iio_dev
> > > *indio_dev,
> > > 
> > > report_id,
> > > 
> > > SENSOR_HUB_SYNC,
> > >                                                          min <
> > > 0);
> > > -             if (prox_state->channel2usage[chan->scan_index] ==
> > > -                 HID_USAGE_SENSOR_HUMAN_ATTENTION)
> > > +             if (mask == IIO_CHAN_INFO_PROCESSED)
Your original change is better. If someone adds a new channel which
also requires IIO_CHAN_INFO_PROCESSED, then they need to change this
line. So I don't think you need this change.

Thanks,
Srinivas

> > >                       *val *= 100;
> > >               hid_sensor_power_state(&prox_state-
> > > > common_attributes, false);
> > >               ret_type = IIO_VAL_INT;
> > > 
> > > ---
> > > base-commit: decc701f41d07481893fdea942c0ac6b226e84cd
> > > change-id: 20241121-fix-processed-ed1a95641e64
> > > 
> > > Best regards,
> > 
> 
>