On Mon, 12 Nov 2018 07:57:58 +
"Ardelean, Alexandru" wrote:
> On Sun, 2018-11-11 at 12:58 +, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > On Thu, 8 Nov 2018 13:44:17 +
> > "Ardelean, Alexandru" wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 2018-11-08 at 11:03 -0200, Giuliano Belinassi wrote:
> > > > Only the ad778x
On Sun, 2018-11-11 at 12:58 +, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Nov 2018 13:44:17 +
> "Ardelean, Alexandru" wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2018-11-08 at 11:03 -0200, Giuliano Belinassi wrote:
> > > Only the ad778x have the 'gain' status bit. Check it before updating
> > > through a new variable
On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 20:15:45 -0200
Giuliano Augusto Faulin Belinassi wrote:
> > Just some random though. Instead of introducing extra level of indentation
> > you
> > can simply check whether is_ad778x is asserted and simply return.
>
> I agree that the patch would be smaller if I do that,
On Thu, 8 Nov 2018 13:44:17 +
"Ardelean, Alexandru" wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-11-08 at 11:03 -0200, Giuliano Belinassi wrote:
> > Only the ad778x have the 'gain' status bit. Check it before updating
> > through a new variable is_ad778x in chip_info.
> >
>
> Looks good.
Alex, formal tags
> Just some random though. Instead of introducing extra level of indentation you
> can simply check whether is_ad778x is asserted and simply return.
I agree that the patch would be smaller if I do that, but is it really
an issue? If yes, then I will update the patch with this change
> Any reason
Hi Giuliano,
Comment inline.
On 11/8/18 2:03 PM, Giuliano Belinassi wrote:
> Only the ad778x have the 'gain' status bit. Check it before updating
> through a new variable is_ad778x in chip_info.
>
> Signed-off-by: Giuliano Belinassi
> ---
> Changes in v2:
> - Squashed is_ad778x
On Thu, 2018-11-08 at 11:03 -0200, Giuliano Belinassi wrote:
> Only the ad778x have the 'gain' status bit. Check it before updating
> through a new variable is_ad778x in chip_info.
>
Looks good.
Alex
> Signed-off-by: Giuliano Belinassi
> ---
> Changes in v2:
> - Squashed is_ad778x
