Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-101199-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1;
Message-ID: <9724f90c-111f-40e7-9787-c62787cef96e@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 10:08:50 +0200
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [drivers/iio] Question about `iio_gts_build_avail_time_table`
Content-Language: en-US, en-GB
To: Chenyuan Yang <chenyuan0y@gmail.com>
Cc: jic23@kernel.org, lars@metafoo.de, linux-iio@vger.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Zijie Zhao <zzjas98@gmail.com>
References: <CALGdzur-rsLbd4BcgtR9QV2=ZH8xHAVySjm2z2TT=Aog74mdPw@mail.gmail.com>
 <6dd0d822-046c-4dd2-9532-79d7ab96ec05@gmail.com>
 <CALGdzuoA4ANBurXyP+00hFPmPznixcMTgrYNp1P4VwvpFb_GtA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALGdzuoA4ANBurXyP+00hFPmPznixcMTgrYNp1P4VwvpFb_GtA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi Chenyuan,

On 3/12/24 18:53, Chenyuan Yang wrote:
> Hi Matti,
> 
> I have a question about the "The idea of the check which has been
> removed was to assign the value in
> the array in first free spot if it is bigger than the last value".

Can you please avoid top-posting when discussing on the Linux lists. You 
can find more information from:
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html

part of which may be crucial in order to get your changes applied if you 
haven't already familiarized yourself with the kernel development processes.


> 
> -               if (times[idx] < new) {
> -                       times[idx++] = new;
> -                       continue;
> -               }
> +               times[idx] = new;
> 
> It appears that the comparison should perhaps be made with `idx-1`
> rather than `idx`, given that `idx` represents the current number of
> copied values in times, whereas `idx-1` points to the last value.
> Could I have your thoughts on this?

Yes. I implemented the old code wrong as you pointed out.

You may want to take the GTS Kunit test cases:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/6b839dd533fd93b75c2e6f6a8f2286233d4901fb.1704881096.git.mazziesaccount@gmail.com/
which, I think, are already merged in IIO testing branch.

You can test the sorting when you change the order of the times in the 
test case:

+static const struct iio_itime_sel_mul gts_test_itimes[] = {
+	GAIN_SCALE_ITIME_US(400 * 1000, TEST_TSEL_400, 8),
+	GAIN_SCALE_ITIME_US(200 * 1000, TEST_TSEL_200, 4),
+	GAIN_SCALE_ITIME_US(100 * 1000, TEST_TSEL_100, 2),
+	GAIN_SCALE_ITIME_US(50 * 1000, TEST_TSEL_50, 1),
+#define TIMEGAIN_MAX 8
+};

for example to

+static const struct iio_itime_sel_mul gts_test_itimes[] = {
+	GAIN_SCALE_ITIME_US(400 * 1000, TEST_TSEL_400, 8),
+	GAIN_SCALE_ITIME_US(50 * 1000, TEST_TSEL_50, 1),
+	GAIN_SCALE_ITIME_US(200 * 1000, TEST_TSEL_200, 4),
+	GAIN_SCALE_ITIME_US(100 * 1000, TEST_TSEL_100, 2),
+#define TIMEGAIN_MAX 8
+};

Yours,
	-- Matti

-- 
Matti Vaittinen
Linux kernel developer at ROHM Semiconductors
Oulu Finland

~~ When things go utterly wrong vim users can always type :help! ~~