On Thu, 14 May 2020 16:17:05 +0300 Alexandru Ardelean <[email protected]> wrote:
> Since there will be some changes to how iio_priv_to_dev() is implemented, > it could be that the helper becomes a bit slower, as it will be hidden away > in the IIO core. > > For this driver, the IIO device can be passed directly as a parameter to > the at91_ts_sample() function, thus making it immune to the change of > iio_priv_to_dev(). > The function gets called in an interrupt context. > > Signed-off-by: Alexandru Ardelean <[email protected]> I wonder. Should we just pass the struct device? It's only used for error printing I think, so we could make that explicit. I'm not that bothered either way though. Jonathan > --- > drivers/iio/adc/at91_adc.c | 5 ++--- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/at91_adc.c b/drivers/iio/adc/at91_adc.c > index 0368b6dc6d60..5999defe47cd 100644 > --- a/drivers/iio/adc/at91_adc.c > +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/at91_adc.c > @@ -287,13 +287,12 @@ static void handle_adc_eoc_trigger(int irq, struct > iio_dev *idev) > } > } > > -static int at91_ts_sample(struct at91_adc_state *st) > +static int at91_ts_sample(struct iio_dev *idev, struct at91_adc_state *st) > { > unsigned int xscale, yscale, reg, z1, z2; > unsigned int x, y, pres, xpos, ypos; > unsigned int rxp = 1; > unsigned int factor = 1000; > - struct iio_dev *idev = iio_priv_to_dev(st); > > unsigned int xyz_mask_bits = st->res; > unsigned int xyz_mask = (1 << xyz_mask_bits) - 1; > @@ -449,7 +448,7 @@ static irqreturn_t at91_adc_9x5_interrupt(int irq, void > *private) > > if (status & AT91_ADC_ISR_PENS) { > /* validate data by pen contact */ > - at91_ts_sample(st); > + at91_ts_sample(idev, st); > } else { > /* triggered by event that is no pen contact, just read > * them to clean the interrupt and discard all.
