On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 05:57:31PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 08:05:22PM +0530, Himanshu Jha wrote:
> > But these should be done when we have *more* instances.
> > For eg:
> > I added a tab space in function static int adis16201_read_raw() argument
> > to match open parentheses in this patch. But I also added tabs while
> > removing and adding suitable suffix to the macros. So, should it also be
> > done in a separate patch ?
> If you're changing a line of code and you fix a white space issue on
> that same line, then that's fine. If it's just in the same function,
> then do it in a separate patch. In other words, adding tabs when you're
> moving around macros is fine, but adding it to the arguments is
I will try and divide my patches next time :)
> This patch was honestly pretty tricky to review.
I am sorry for that. Might be easy for IIO reviewers ;)
> Jonathan assumes reviewers have the datasheet in front of them and I
> assume that that they don't. He's probably right... But especially
> comments like this:
> *val2 = 220000; /* 1.22 mV */
They are pretty obvious as you can see from the return statements
just below that which is :
These comments are obvious because we know 'val1' will be responsible
for Integer part(1.0) and 'val2' for the Micro part(220000 * 10^-6 = 0.22).
Isn't it ?
Although I am new to IIO please correct if I'm wrong.
devel mailing list