Hi Jonathan,
On 07/19/2013 10:32 PM, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
@@ -323,6 +326,54 @@ static int mxs_lradc_read_raw(struct iio_dev *iio_dev,
return ret;
}
+static int mxs_lradc_write_raw(struct iio_dev *iio_dev,
+ const struct iio_chan_spec *chan,
+ int val, int val2, long m)
+{
+ struct mxs_lradc *lradc = iio_priv(iio_dev);
+ int ret;
+
+ ret = mutex_trylock(&lradc->lock);
+ if (!ret)
+ return -EBUSY;
+
+ switch (m) {
+ case IIO_CHAN_INFO_SCALE:
+ ret = -EINVAL;
+ if (val == lradc->scale_avail[chan->channel][0][0] &&
+ val2 == lradc->scale_avail[chan->channel][0][1]) {
+ /* [0] -> divider by two disabled */
This comment is confusing, you use [0] in different dimensions of the array. So
is the stuff below.
Still, how does this even work, can you show me and example how to set the
divider from userland ? Sorry, I'm a bit confused with this 3D-business here,
even if the comment in previous patch made it a bit clearer. Actually you can
use some #define to specify if you're accessing div/2 or div/1 portion of the
array to make it more readable.
Like ... scale_avail[chan->channel][LRADC_DIV_BY_2][LRADC_DECIMAL_PART] ...
would by nice.
Agreed.
Could even make the int + nano part a structure then you could have
scale_avail[chan->channel][LRADC_DIV_BY_2].integer / .nano
might not be worth the hassel though for the slight gain in readability.
I'm happy either way.
I prefer the struct approach, it removes one dimension to the array and I find
it cleaner.
Best regards,
--
Hector Palacios
--
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/
