Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
From:   "Sa, Nuno" <Nuno.Sa@analog.com>
To:     "Ardelean, Alexandru" <alexandru.Ardelean@analog.com>,
        "linux-iio@vger.kernel.org" <linux-iio@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
CC:     "jic23@kernel.org" <jic23@kernel.org>,
        "lars@metafoo.de" <lars@metafoo.de>,
        "Ardelean, Alexandru" <alexandru.Ardelean@analog.com>
Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH 0/4] iio: scan_mask rework to track enabled channels
 on per-channel basis
Thread-Topic: [RFC PATCH 0/4] iio: scan_mask rework to track enabled channels
 on per-channel basis
Thread-Index: AQHWGffAWBNJoKCU8UKZv3J4cR98RKiH4CvA
Date:   Fri, 24 Apr 2020 07:51:02 +0000
Message-ID: <CY4PR03MB3350FBD3C1AE562371E5CF4799D00@CY4PR03MB3350.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20200424051818.6408-1-alexandru.ardelean@analog.com>
In-Reply-To: <20200424051818.6408-1-alexandru.ardelean@analog.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: analog.com does not designate
 permitted sender hosts)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 0d5fb2e0-fd21-4f79-8f90-08d7e8243cb7
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 24 Apr 2020 07:51:02.9884
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: eaa689b4-8f87-40e0-9c6f-7228de4d754a
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: T+U99eM9qi7y2tSxNdki6fXirAkTTxHT1wN+/wFGxflxunr/lY67RzMq1trN/MiDfUSl5Aph12g+LTrXwKnB1Q==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CY4PR03MB2485
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.138,18.0.676
 definitions=2020-04-24_02:2020-04-23,2020-04-24 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 malwarescore=0
 mlxlogscore=999 priorityscore=1501 clxscore=1015 impostorscore=0
 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 mlxscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 bulkscore=0
 adultscore=0 spamscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1
 engine=8.12.0-2003020000 definitions=main-2004240060
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

> From: linux-iio-owner@vger.kernel.org <linux-iio-owner@vger.kernel.org>
> On Behalf Of Alexandru Ardelean
> Sent: Freitag, 24. April 2020 07:18
> To: linux-iio@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: jic23@kernel.org; lars@metafoo.de; Ardelean, Alexandru
> <alexandru.Ardelean@analog.com>
> Subject: [RFC PATCH 0/4] iio: scan_mask rework to track enabled channels =
on
> per-channel basis
>=20
>=20
> From my side, I'll admit that the specific use-cases for these patches
> are a bit outside of my scope of understanding.
> I did my best to re-apply them on a newer tree, and dig-up the
> information from the ADI tree [where they've been living for a while
> now].
>=20
> Also, I don't have any idea if there was a prior discussion about this.
> I could not find anything on a quick search.
>=20
> I'm hoping that the author would have some input on them/
>=20
> Hence the RFC.
>=20

Yeah, I remember I stumbled against this when looking to some of our driver=
s where we have (IIRC) a 16
channel ADC where 1 channel occupies 1 bit. I just gave a quick look on thi=
s and it looks good to me
(naturally it needs a deeper look :D). I just have one remark/question inli=
ne in patch 4.

- Nuno S=E1