Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.37 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.37;
Sender: Guenter Roeck <groeck7@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <84252c5e-9a39-91bd-b7da-2bdea1b2aff6@roeck-us.net>
Date:   Fri, 27 Oct 2023 07:51:43 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.15.1
Content-Language: en-US
To:     "Matyas, Daniel" <Daniel.Matyas@analog.com>
Cc:     Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        "linux-hwmon@vger.kernel.org" <linux-hwmon@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20231026144405.546822-1-daniel.matyas@analog.com>
 <20231026144405.546822-2-daniel.matyas@analog.com>
 <fe99431e-3245-484c-bf26-928048500ec6@roeck-us.net>
 <PH0PR03MB67712B3C063B794442F6D58A89DCA@PH0PR03MB6771.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/4] hwmon: max31827: Add support for max31828 and
 max31829
In-Reply-To: <PH0PR03MB67712B3C063B794442F6D58A89DCA@PH0PR03MB6771.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 10/27/23 06:00, Matyas, Daniel wrote:
[ ... ]

>> I also don't understand why that would be chip specific. I don't see
>> anything along that line in the datasheet.
>>
>> Ah, wait ... I guess that is supposed to reflect the chip default.
>> I don't see why the chip default makes a difference - a well defined default
>> must be set either way. Again, there is no guarantee that the chip is in its
>> default state when the driver is loaded.
> 
> The well defined default was set in v4, but I deleted it, because the default value in hex for max31827 and max31828 alarm polarity, and max31827 fault queue is 0x0. I had 2 #defines for these values, but you said:
> " Since MAX31827_ALRM_POL_LOW is 0, this code doesn't really do anything and just pollutes the code."
> 
> So, I thought I should remove it altogether, since res is set to 0 in the beginning and the default value of these chips (i.e. 0) is implicitly set.
> 
>>
>> Also, why are the default values added in this patch and not in the
>> previous patch ?
>>
> 
> In v4 these default values were set in the previous patch.
>   

I asked you (or meant to ask you) to stop overwriting 0 with 0
in a variable. I didn't mean to ask you (if I did) to stop writing
the default value into the chip. Sorry if I did; if so, that was
a misunderstanding.

Guenter