Re: [PATCH 07/12] iio: pressure: rohm-bm1390: Fix AVE_NUM initialization
Jonathan Cameron <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.linux-iio,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <20260823233811.21757c87@jic23-huawei> |
On Mon, 17 Aug 2026 08:43:26 +0300 Matti Vaittinen <[email protected]> wrote: > On 17/08/2026 04:19, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 13:08:14 +0300 > > Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Aug 11, 2026 at 12:05:47PM +0300, Matti Vaittinen wrote: > >>> On 10/08/2026 23:06, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > >>>> On Mon, Aug 10, 2026 at 10:53:07AM +0300, Matti Vaittinen wrote: > >> > >> ... > >> > >>>>> Use FIELD_PREP() to shift the intended AVE_NUM value to correct field. > >>>> > >>>> Can it be FIELD_PREP_CONST()? > >>> > >>> Can you please elaborate why it should in this case? > >> > >> I'm not sure why it's not obvious, but the parameters are constants, why would > >> we need an additional check or even checks? > >> > > I'm not sure it is as obvious as the name would suggest. > > FIELD_PREP() has a whole bunch of stuff that runs if it happens > > to have a build time constant value + FIELD_PREP_CONST() is > > documented as primarily being there when the code requires a constant > > to be correct. > > This is what I read. My first thought was that FIELD_PREP_CONST() is > useful when constant initializer is needed. So no, not obvious for me. > Applied. It's in the testing branch, so I can rebase if this discussion restarts, but it seems to have died out. Jonathan > Yours, > -- Matti >