Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] iio: pressure: dps310: Refactor startup procedure

[Eddie James]

On 8/20/22 06:49, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Aug 2022 12:42:00 +0300
> Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 4:42 PM Eddie James <eajames@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On 8/12/22 17:03, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 12:12 AM Eddie James <eajames@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > ...
> >
> > > > > +       rc = regmap_write(data->regmap, 0x0e, 0xA5);
> > > > > +       if (rc)
> > > > > +               return rc;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +       rc = regmap_write(data->regmap, 0x0f, 0x96);
> > > > > +       if (rc)
> > > > > +               return rc;
> > > > This code already exists, but still want to ask, is it really
> > > > byte-registers here and not be16/le16 one? In such a case perhaps bulk
> > > > write can be used to reflect it better?
> > > The temperature and pressure regs are 24 bits big endian, and all the
> > > rest are 8 bits. I think the existing approach is best.
> > It doesn't look like you got what I was meaning... Or I misunderstood
> > what you said.
> >
> > The code above writes two byte values to two sequential registers
> > which make me think that they are 16-bit registers at offset 0x0e.
> Given they are undocumented, this is guessing territory.
> Probably best to just leave them as is.
> You could do a bulk write on an array though as that implies
> nothing about what's in the registers -just that they happen
> to be next to each other.


Indeed. Is it worth it to switch to bulk write for two 2-byte writes? 
I'm inclined to say no and will leave this as-is for v6, but if you 
think it is, I can switch it.


Thanks,

Eddie


> > ...
> >
> > > > > +       rc = regmap_write(data->regmap, 0x0e, 0x00);
> > > > > +       if (rc)
> > > > > +               return rc;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +       return regmap_write(data->regmap, 0x0f, 0x00);
> > Ditto.