Re: [PATCH] iio: accel: adxl380: fix FIFO watermark bit 8 always written as 0

[David Lechner <dlechner@baylibre.com>]

On 3/2/26 1:56 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 28, 2026 at 10:50:00AM -0600, David Lechner wrote:
>> On 2/27/26 6:43 AM, Antoniu Miclaus wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
>>> +					    !!(fifo_samples & BIT(8))));
>>
>> Technically, this works, but in terms of understanding the code I think
>> fifo_samples >= BIT(8) would make more sense.
>>
>> fifo_samples is a count, not bit flags.
> 
> I even would prefer to see in such a case
> 
> 	fifo_samples > (BIT(8) - 1)
> 
> that it will define the maximum that fits the HW, or plain number
> 
> 	fifo_samples > 127
> 

Now that I looked at the dataheet, I get Jonathan's point.

The reason this is here is that we are filling in a 9-bit value
using 8-bit registers, so the MSB goes in a different register.

So actually, it would probably make the most sense to write
it as `fifo_samples >> 8`.