Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.38 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.38;
Date:   Fri, 27 Oct 2023 14:33:35 +0100
From:   Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>
To:     Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com>
Cc:     Jagath Jog J <jagathjog1996@gmail.com>,
        Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@fi.rohmeurope.com>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>,
        Mehdi Djait <mehdi.djait.k@gmail.com>,
        linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iio: kx022a: Fix acceleration value scaling
Message-ID: <20231027143335.7faa87aa@jic23-huawei>
In-Reply-To: <77b5f4a6-4012-4409-9034-419b852a783f@gmail.com>
References: <ZTEt7NqfDHPOkm8j@dc78bmyyyyyyyyyyyyydt-3.rev.dnainternet.fi>
        <CAM+2Eu+ndzS9NLvsZaX_=YTHb_+t4cE5GjQevJ1Lgc2EBO20rA@mail.gmail.com>
        <c623b6ff-6d6c-4351-b828-4ed4663f9de9@gmail.com>
        <CAM+2EuJ8J+sJNBqbPuFLXVK-Y9V=q+Lt=js9giWdSZ6H=aJ2Jg@mail.gmail.com>
        <77b5f4a6-4012-4409-9034-419b852a783f@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 09:24:39 +0300
Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 10/20/23 19:48, Jagath Jog J wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 5:39=E2=80=AFPM Matti Vaittinen
> > <mazziesaccount@gmail.com> wrote: =20
> >>
> >> On 10/19/23 21:21, Jagath Jog J wrote: =20
> >>> Hi Matti,
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 6:54=E2=80=AFPM Matti Vaittinen
> >>> <mazziesaccount@gmail.com> wrote: =20
> >>>> =20
> >  =20
> >>>> I did only very quick testing on KX022A and iio_generic_buffer. After
> >>>> the patch the values seemed to be correct order of magnitude. Further
> >>>> testing is appreciated :) =20
> >>>
> >>> Values are correct with this change, Thank you for fixing.
> >>> Tested-by: Jagath Jog J <jagathjog1996@gmail.com> =20
> >>
> >> Thanks a ton for testing! May I ask which component did you use (or did
> >> you just use some 'simulated' regster values?) =20
> >=20
> > Hi Matti,
> >=20
> > I just simulated with the register values, Should the 'tested-by' tag o=
nly be
> > provided after hardware testing? =20
>=20
> I am not sure TBH. I didn't have a problem with your tag though, I was=20
> merely curious to hear about the IC usage :)
>=20
> Now that you mentioned the tested-by tag usage, I started to wonder it=20
> as well. From pure SW/driver point of view the register value simulation=
=20
> is sufficient - but in practice we are not interested in whether the=20
> code works "in theory" - but whether the products do really work. This=20
> is something which includes handling of potential HW quircks and=20
> oddities - which are not always documented or known.
>=20
> If we assume a case where someone is developing new gizmo and hits a bug=
=20
> which is in reality caused by some undocumented HW hiccup - then fixes=20
> with "tested-by" tags which are not actually tested on HW having this=20
> hiccup but using SW simulation - may be misleading.
>=20
> The above is just some overall pondering - I am not too concerned on=20
> your tested-by tag :) Besides, it's cool you did the testing! I=20
> appreciate that! However, I wonder if there is some wider consensus=20
> whether the tests should be ran using real HW when tested-by tag is=20
> given. Jonathan, do you have any educated opinion on this?

It's fine to add a note.  People typically do this if they've tested on
a particular device from a set.  So if you want to (entirely optional)

Tested-by .... #Tested by simulate register values

I wouldn't describe that as a particularly educated opinion though :)
Not something I care that much about.

J
>=20
> > I referred to this driver because it's
> > the most recent accelerometer driver that was merged. =20
>=20
> Makes sense :) Thanks for replying!
>=20
> Yours,
> 	-- Matti
>=20