Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] iio: pressure: Simplify read_* functions

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 08:22:45PM +0100, Vasileios Amoiridis wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 09:01:55PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 06:40:03PM +0100, Vasileios Amoiridis wrote:

..

> > >  		case IIO_TEMP:
> > > -			ret = data->chip_info->read_temp(data, val, val2);
> > > +			ret = data->chip_info->read_temp(data);
> > > +			*val = data->chip_info->temp_coeffs[0] * ret;
> > > +			*val2 = data->chip_info->temp_coeffs[1];
> > 
> > > +			if (!strcmp(indio_dev->name, "bmp580"))
> > > +				ret = IIO_VAL_FRACTIONAL_LOG2;
> > > +			else
> > > +				ret = IIO_VAL_FRACTIONAL;
> > 
> > I'm wondering if we may replace these strcmp():s by using enum and respective
> > values in chip_info.
> 
> The whole problem starts from the fact that all these BMPxxx_CHIP_ID defines are
> not unique for the respective BMPxxx device. You mean to add a new variable
> that could store some enum values that would be the actual chip_info IDs? Like:
> 
> enum chip_info_ids = {
> 	BMP085,
> 	BMP180,
> 	...
> 	BMP580,
> };
> 
> and later for every chip_info struct to use it like this:
> 
> const struct bmp280_chip_info bmpxxx_chip_info = {
> 	...
> 	.chip_info_id = BIT(BMPxxx),

No BIT(), but yes.

> 	...
> }
> 
> And in the read_raw() function to just use the test_bit() function in the same
> way that is done with the test_bit() and avail_scan_mask to test for the
> enabled channels?

If BIT() is more suitable, than also yes.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko