On 10/16/2015 12:29 PM, Teodora Baluta wrote:
> This patch adds a minimal implementation for the Memsic MXC6255XC
> orientation sensing accelerometer. The supported operations are reading
> raw acceleration values for X/Y axis that can be scaled using the
> exposed scale.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Teodora Baluta <teodora.bal...@intel.com>

Looks quite good in general, a few minor things inline.

[...]
> +/* scale value for +/- 2G measurement range */
> +static const int mxc6255_scale = 153829;
> +
> +static IIO_CONST_ATTR(in_accel_scale_available, MXC6255_SCALE_AVAIL);

If there is only one scale available it does not make too much sense to have
a scale_available attribute.

[..]
> +static int mxc6255_read_raw(struct iio_dev *indio_dev,
> +                         struct iio_chan_spec const *chan,
> +                         int *val, int *val2, long mask)
> +{
> +     struct mxc6255_data *data = iio_priv(indio_dev);
> +     unsigned int reg;
> +     int axis = chan->channel2 - 1;

1 is a bit of a magic constant here. Use IIO_MOD_X instead. Or even better
use chan->address.

> +     int ret;
> +
> +     switch (mask) {
> +     case IIO_CHAN_INFO_RAW:
> +             ret = regmap_read(data->regmap,
> +                               MXC6255_AXIS_TO_REG(axis), &reg);
> +             if (ret < 0) {
> +                     dev_err(&data->client->dev,
> +                             "Error reading axis %d\n", axis);
> +                     return ret;
> +             }
> +
> +             *val = sign_extend32(reg, 7);
> +             return IIO_VAL_INT;
> +     case IIO_CHAN_INFO_SCALE:
> +             *val = 0;
> +             *val2 = mxc6255_scale;
> +             return IIO_VAL_INT_PLUS_MICRO;
> +     default:
> +             return -EINVAL;
> +     }
> +}
[...]
> +static int mxc6255_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
> +                      const struct i2c_device_id *id)
> +{
[...]
> +     ret = regmap_read(data->regmap, MXC6255_REG_CHIP_ID, &chip_id);
> +     if (ret < 0) {
> +             dev_err(&client->dev, "Error reading chip id %d\n", ret);
> +             return ret;
> +     }

Does it make sense to check whether chip ID matches the expected value, to
catch mistakes where the I2C address is incorrect?

> +
> +     dev_dbg(&client->dev, "Chip id %x\n", chip_id);
> +
> +     ret = devm_iio_device_register(&client->dev, indio_dev);
> +     if (ret < 0) {
> +             dev_err(&client->dev, "Could not register IIO device\n");
> +             return ret;
> +     }
> +
> +     return 0;
> +}
[...]
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Reply via email to