Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-97975-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2024 18:12:33 +0000
From: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Vasileios Amoiridis <vassilisamir@gmail.com>, lars@metafoo.de,
 ang.iglesiasg@gmail.com, mazziesaccount@gmail.com, ak@it-klinger.de,
 petre.rodan@subdimension.ro, phil@raspberrypi.com, 579lpy@gmail.com,
 linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] iio: pressure: Add timestamp and scan_masks for
 BMP280 driver
Message-ID: <20240309181233.189abfaf@jic23-huawei>
In-Reply-To: <ZeYb3S1VNoziKHbb@smile.fi.intel.com>
References: <20240303165300.468011-1-vassilisamir@gmail.com>
	<20240303165300.468011-4-vassilisamir@gmail.com>
	<ZeW048EyOAze7oZR@smile.fi.intel.com>
	<20240304185017.GA3955@vamoiridPC>
	<ZeYb3S1VNoziKHbb@smile.fi.intel.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 21:07:09 +0200
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 07:50:17PM +0100, Vasileios Amoiridis wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 01:47:47PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:  
> > > On Sun, Mar 03, 2024 at 05:52:59PM +0100, Vasileios Amoiridis wrote:  
> 
> ...
> 
> > > > +enum bmp280_scan {
> > > > +	BMP280_TEMP,
> > > > +	BMP280_PRESS,
> > > > +	BME280_HUMID,
> > > > +};  
> > > 
> > > Hmm... Why do we need to actually copy the IIO ones? Can't we use IIO ones
> > > directly (or in some way)?  
> > 
> > What do you mean exactly by copying the IIO ones? These values are used as
> > indexes to enable channels in the avail_scan_masks below.  
> 
> Yeah, I have now an answer to my question. The IIO drivers provide these lists
> as mapping between available channels (as starting from 0) and real channels
> as per IIO specifications (which can be anything, although limited currently
> by 40 or so).
> 

These are the scan indexes. It would be better to specify them as such
in the channel definitions so that the two sets of values are forced to match.

Jonathan