| Message ID | 20240323122030.21800-1-l.rubusch@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | iio: accel: adxl345: Add spi-3wire feature | expand |
On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 12:20:24 +0000 Lothar Rubusch <l.rubusch@gmail.com> wrote: > Pass a function setup() as pointer from SPI/I2C specific modules > to the core module. Implement setup() to pass the spi-3wire bus > option, if declared in the device-tree. > > In the core module, then update data_format register > configuration bits instead of overwriting it. The changes allow > to remove a data_range field, remove I2C and SPI redundant info > instances and replace them by a common info array instance. > > Signed-off-by: Lothar Rubusch <l.rubusch@gmail.com> That patch break up seems reasonable (one minor request for a split in the relevant patch), but normal convention would be do do refactoring first, then functionality at the end. Also removal stuff and group, before adding things. So roughly speaking reorder as > iio: accel: adxl345: Make data_format obsolete > iio: accel: adxl345: Remove single info instances > iio: accel: adxl345: Group bus configuration > dt-bindings: iio: accel: adxl345: Add spi-3wire > iio: accel: adxl345: Pass function pointer to core > iio: accel: adxl345: Add the spi-3wire Thanks, Jonathan > --- > V1 -> V2: split into spi-3wire and refactoring > V2 -> V3: split further, focus on needed changesets > > Lothar Rubusch (6): > iio: accel: adxl345: Pass function pointer to core > iio: accel: adxl345: Make data_format obsolete > iio: accel: adxl345: Add the spi-3wire > iio: accel: adxl345: Remove single info instances > iio: accel: adxl345: Group bus configuration > dt-bindings: iio: accel: adxl345: Add spi-3wire > > .../bindings/iio/accel/adi,adxl345.yaml | 2 + > drivers/iio/accel/adxl345.h | 13 ++++- > drivers/iio/accel/adxl345_core.c | 48 +++++++++++++++---- > drivers/iio/accel/adxl345_i2c.c | 22 +++------ > drivers/iio/accel/adxl345_spi.c | 32 ++++++------- > 5 files changed, 75 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-) >
On Sun, Mar 24, 2024 at 2:39 PM Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 12:20:24 +0000 > Lothar Rubusch <l.rubusch@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Pass a function setup() as pointer from SPI/I2C specific modules > > to the core module. Implement setup() to pass the spi-3wire bus > > option, if declared in the device-tree. > > > > In the core module, then update data_format register > > configuration bits instead of overwriting it. The changes allow > > to remove a data_range field, remove I2C and SPI redundant info > > instances and replace them by a common info array instance. > > > > Signed-off-by: Lothar Rubusch <l.rubusch@gmail.com> > That patch break up seems reasonable (one minor request for a split > in the relevant patch), but normal convention would be do do > refactoring first, then functionality at the end. Also removal stuff > and group, before adding things. > > So roughly speaking reorder as > > > iio: accel: adxl345: Make data_format obsolete > > iio: accel: adxl345: Remove single info instances > > iio: accel: adxl345: Group bus configuration > > dt-bindings: iio: accel: adxl345: Add spi-3wire > > iio: accel: adxl345: Pass function pointer to core > > iio: accel: adxl345: Add the spi-3wire > Ok. If I split "Group bus configuration" into the grouping of the indio_dev in the probe() and adding a comment to the core's probe(), I will end up with something like this: $ git log --oneline --reverse iio: accel: adxl345: Make data_range obsolete iio: accel: adxl345: Group bus configuration iio: accel: adxl345: Move defines to header <--- new dt-bindings: iio: accel: adxl345: Add spi-3wire iio: accel: adxl345: Pass function pointer to core iio: accel: adxl345: Add comment to probe <--- new after split iio: accel: adxl345: Add spi-3wire option I feel I have to add the comment after adding the passed function pointer. Bascially I liked to add a comment mentioning especially the new function pointer there. So, although being a comment, the commit will be in this "high" position. Is this ok, or am I doing something wrong? Should I split into setting the comment first, then inside "Pass function pointer.." also update the comment?
On Sun, 24 Mar 2024 20:20:21 +0100 Lothar Rubusch <l.rubusch@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Mar 24, 2024 at 2:39 PM Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 12:20:24 +0000 > > Lothar Rubusch <l.rubusch@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Pass a function setup() as pointer from SPI/I2C specific modules > > > to the core module. Implement setup() to pass the spi-3wire bus > > > option, if declared in the device-tree. > > > > > > In the core module, then update data_format register > > > configuration bits instead of overwriting it. The changes allow > > > to remove a data_range field, remove I2C and SPI redundant info > > > instances and replace them by a common info array instance. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Lothar Rubusch <l.rubusch@gmail.com> > > That patch break up seems reasonable (one minor request for a split > > in the relevant patch), but normal convention would be do do > > refactoring first, then functionality at the end. Also removal stuff > > and group, before adding things. > > > > So roughly speaking reorder as > > > > > iio: accel: adxl345: Make data_format obsolete > > > iio: accel: adxl345: Remove single info instances > > > iio: accel: adxl345: Group bus configuration > > > dt-bindings: iio: accel: adxl345: Add spi-3wire > > > iio: accel: adxl345: Pass function pointer to core > > > iio: accel: adxl345: Add the spi-3wire > > > > Ok. If I split "Group bus configuration" into the grouping of the > indio_dev in the probe() and adding a comment to the core's probe(), I > will end up with something like this: > > $ git log --oneline --reverse > iio: accel: adxl345: Make data_range obsolete > iio: accel: adxl345: Group bus configuration > iio: accel: adxl345: Move defines to header <--- new > dt-bindings: iio: accel: adxl345: Add spi-3wire > iio: accel: adxl345: Pass function pointer to core > iio: accel: adxl345: Add comment to probe <--- new after split > iio: accel: adxl345: Add spi-3wire option > > I feel I have to add the comment after adding the passed function > pointer. Bascially I liked to add a comment mentioning especially the > new function pointer there. So, although being a comment, the commit > will be in this "high" position. Is this ok, or am I doing something > wrong? Should I split into setting the comment first, then inside > "Pass function pointer.." also update the comment? This is fine. Either of the options you suggest would be fine, but given you've done the above already let's go with that. Jonathan >
Pass a function setup() as pointer from SPI/I2C specific modules to the core module. Implement setup() to pass the spi-3wire bus option, if declared in the device-tree. In the core module, then update data_format register configuration bits instead of overwriting it. The changes allow to remove a data_range field, remove I2C and SPI redundant info instances and replace them by a common info array instance. Signed-off-by: Lothar Rubusch <l.rubusch@gmail.com> --- V1 -> V2: split into spi-3wire and refactoring V2 -> V3: split further, focus on needed changesets Lothar Rubusch (6): iio: accel: adxl345: Pass function pointer to core iio: accel: adxl345: Make data_format obsolete iio: accel: adxl345: Add the spi-3wire iio: accel: adxl345: Remove single info instances iio: accel: adxl345: Group bus configuration dt-bindings: iio: accel: adxl345: Add spi-3wire .../bindings/iio/accel/adi,adxl345.yaml | 2 + drivers/iio/accel/adxl345.h | 13 ++++- drivers/iio/accel/adxl345_core.c | 48 +++++++++++++++---- drivers/iio/accel/adxl345_i2c.c | 22 +++------ drivers/iio/accel/adxl345_spi.c | 32 ++++++------- 5 files changed, 75 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-)