On 05/20/2016 09:39 AM, Peter Rosin wrote:
> On 2016-05-20 04:34, Matt Ranostay wrote:
>> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 8:00 AM, Crestez Dan Leonard
>> <leonard.cres...@intel.com> wrote:
>>> Signed-off-by: Crestez Dan Leonard <leonard.cres...@intel.com>
>>> ---
>>> 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.
>
>> 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.
