Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] iio: inv_mpu6050: Initial regcache support
From: Crestez Dan Leonard <hidden>
Date: 2016-05-20 11:02:17
Also in:
linux-i2c, linux-iio, lkml
On 05/20/2016 09:39 AM, Peter Rosin wrote:
On 2016-05-20 04:34, Matt Ranostay wrote:quoted
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 8:00 AM, Crestez Dan Leonard [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
Signed-off-by: Crestez Dan Leonard <redacted> --- drivers/iio/imu/inv_mpu6050/inv_mpu_core.c | 47 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ drivers/iio/imu/inv_mpu6050/inv_mpu_i2c.c | 5 ---- drivers/iio/imu/inv_mpu6050/inv_mpu_iio.h | 1 + drivers/iio/imu/inv_mpu6050/inv_mpu_spi.c | 5 ---- 4 files changed, 48 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)diff --git a/drivers/iio/imu/inv_mpu6050/inv_mpu_core.c b/drivers/iio/imu/inv_mpu6050/inv_mpu_core.c index b269b37..5918c23 100644 --- a/drivers/iio/imu/inv_mpu6050/inv_mpu_core.c +++ b/drivers/iio/imu/inv_mpu6050/inv_mpu_core.c@@ -116,6 +116,53 @@ static const struct inv_mpu6050_hw hw_info[] = { }, }; +static bool inv_mpu6050_volatile_reg(struct device *dev, unsigned int reg) +{ + if (reg >= INV_MPU6050_REG_RAW_ACCEL && reg < INV_MPU6050_REG_RAW_ACCEL + 6) + return true; + if (reg >= INV_MPU6050_REG_RAW_GYRO && reg < INV_MPU6050_REG_RAW_GYRO + 6) + return true;I think you want to put parenthesis around the addition operations...Maybe.quoted
the condition check probably don't evaluate to what you are expecting.Looks sane to me since + has highest precedence, then < and >=, and && comes in last... ...but even so, I think I would use an ellipsis in the switch statement instead, like so: static bool inv_mpu6050_volatile_reg(struct device *dev, unsigned int reg) { switch (reg) { case INV_MPU6050_REG_RAW_ACCEL ... INV_MPU6050_REG_RAW_ACCEL + 5: case INV_MPU6050_REG_RAW_GYRO ... INV_MPU6050_REG_RAW_GYRO + 5: case INV_MPU6050_REG_TEMPERATURE: case INV_MPU6050_REG_TEMPERATURE + 1: case INV_MPU6050_REG_USER_CTRL: case INV_MPU6050_REG_PWR_MGMT_1: case INV_MPU6050_REG_FIFO_COUNT_H: case INV_MPU6050_REG_FIFO_COUNT_H + 1: case INV_MPU6050_REG_FIFO_R_W: return true; default: return false; } }
Neat, I didn't know about this extension. It does look nicer in this function.