From: Alexander Koch <mail@alexanderkoch.net>
To: Peter Meerwald-Stadler <pmeerw@pmeerw.net>
Cc: jic23@kernel.org, knaack.h@gmx.de, lars@metafoo.de,
mhornung.linux@gmail.com, dannenberg@ti.com, balbi@ti.com,
linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] iio: light: opt3001: enable operation w/o IRQ
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 21:17:07 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <56955F43.90705@alexanderkoch.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1601122024340.10606@pmeerw.net>
Am 12.01.2016 um 20:27 schrieb Peter Meerwald-Stadler:
> On Tue, 12 Jan 2016, Alexander Koch wrote:
>
>> Enable operation of the TI OPT3001 light sensor without having an
>> interrupt line available to connect the INT pin to.
>>
>> In this operation mode, we issue a conversion request and simply wait
>> for the conversion time available as timeout value, determined from
>> integration time configuration and the worst-case time given in the data
>> sheet (sect. 6.5, table on p. 5):
>>
>> short integration time (100ms): 110ms + 3ms = 113ms
>> long integration time (800ms): 880ms + 3ms = 883ms
>>
>> This change is transparent as behaviour defaults to using the interrupt
>> method if an interrupt no. is configured via device tree. Interrupt-less
>> operation mode is performed when no valid interrupt no. is given.
>
> looks good, I'd rather use a bool for use_irq and the msecs_to_jiffies()
> call moved from the #define to the code (which is not strictly necessary
> for the patch) -- matter of taste
Thanks - actually this is my first patch, so positive feedback much
appreciated!
Concerning the bool for 'use_irq': I first had it that way but then
opted for the bit field of length 1 as I wasn't sure whether bool would
get optimized to the same level by the compiler.
I'm a bit irritated by your comment concerning the msecs_to_jiffies()
call, as my patch indeed moves this call from the #define to the code.
Did you mean it the other way round, then?
My reason to move it was that I need to work with microseconds for the
IRQ-less operation mode, and jiffies are only required in one place for
the IRQ mode.
Best regards
lynix
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-01-12 20:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-01-12 18:09 [PATCH 0/2] iio: light: opt3001: Enable operation w/o IRQ Alexander Koch
2016-01-12 18:09 ` [PATCH 1/2] iio: light: opt3001: extract int. time constants Alexander Koch
2016-01-12 18:09 ` [PATCH 2/2] iio: light: opt3001: enable operation w/o IRQ Alexander Koch
2016-01-12 19:27 ` Peter Meerwald-Stadler
2016-01-12 20:17 ` Alexander Koch [this message]
2016-01-16 12:52 ` Jonathan Cameron
2016-01-16 12:53 ` Jonathan Cameron
2016-01-16 13:16 ` Alexander Koch
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=56955F43.90705@alexanderkoch.net \
--to=mail@alexanderkoch.net \
--cc=balbi@ti.com \
--cc=dannenberg@ti.com \
--cc=jic23@kernel.org \
--cc=knaack.h@gmx.de \
--cc=lars@metafoo.de \
--cc=linux-iio@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mhornung.linux@gmail.com \
--cc=pmeerw@pmeerw.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox