On 2022-08-19 10:17, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 1:58 PM Artur Rojek [off-list ref] 
wrote:

quoted

This is useful for consumers that wish to parse raw buffer data.

...

quoted

+int iio_find_channel_offset_in_buffer(struct iio_dev *indio_dev,
+                                     const struct iio_chan_spec 
*chan,
+                                     struct iio_buffer *buffer)
+{
+       int length, offset = 0;
+       unsigned int si;
+
+       if (chan->scan_index < 0 ||
+           !test_bit(chan->scan_index, buffer->scan_mask)) {
+               return -EINVAL;
+       }

Have you run checkpatch? The {} are redundant. But personally I would
split this into two separate conditionals.

I did run checkpatch on it - all patches were ready for submission.
I don't find the {} redundant for multi-line statements, like this one,
and I personally prefer to check conditions that return the same error
type together.

quoted

+       for (si = 0; si < chan->scan_index; ++si) {

Just a side crying: where did you, people, get this pre-increment 
pattern from?!

quoted

+               if (!test_bit(si, buffer->scan_mask))
+                       continue;

NIH for_each_set_bit()

quoted

+               length = iio_storage_bytes_for_si(indio_dev, si);
+
+               /* Account for channel alignment. */
+               if (offset % length)
+                       offset += length - (offset % length);
+               offset += length;
+       }
+
+       return offset;
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(iio_find_channel_offset_in_buffer);

Same Q as per previous patch: IIO namespace?