The sca3000 driver is old and could be simplified by using newer
infrastructure.

Signed-off-by: Andrew Ijano <andrew.lopes@alumni.usp.br>
Co-developed-by: Gustavo Bastos <gustavobastos@usp.br>
Signed-off-by: Gustavo Bastos <gustavobastos@usp.br>
Suggested-by: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>
---
v5 -> v6:
- break up changes related to read data helpers in two patches
- fix formatting
- add local scope for switch() cases that use guard()
- use sysfs_emit_at() instead of sprintf()

v4 -> v5:
- break up the changes in three patches
- replace error_ret labels by simple returns
- use spi_w8r16be() for be16 reads
- use guard(mutex) for handling mutex lock

v3 -> v4:
- clean the code and remove redundant operations

v2 -> v3:
- replace usages of internal read data helpers by spi helpers

v1 -> v2:
- simplify the return of the internal read data function
---
Andrew Ijano (4):
  iio: accel: sca3000: replace usages of internal read data helpers by
    spi helpers
  iio: accel: sca3000: clean sca3000_read_data()
  iio: accel: sca3000: use lock guards
  iio: accel: sca3000: use sysfs_emit_at() instead of sprintf()

 drivers/iio/accel/sca3000.c | 384 ++++++++++++++----------------------
 1 file changed, 145 insertions(+), 239 deletions(-)

-- 
2.49.0

On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 6:17 AM Andrew Ijano <andrew.ijano@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The sca3000 driver is old and could be simplified by using newer
> infrastructure.

I haven't found any reference to a base commit here. Have you
forgotten to use --base when preparing the series?
In any case, please clarify what this series is based on.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 2:56 AM Andy Shevchenko
<andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 6:17 AM Andrew Ijano <andrew.ijano@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > The sca3000 driver is old and could be simplified by using newer
> > infrastructure.
>
> I haven't found any reference to a base commit here. Have you
> forgotten to use --base when preparing the series?
> In any case, please clarify what this series is based on.

Thank you for pointing this out! I think I forgot to use --base for
it. In this case, should I submit a new version of the whole patchset
with this information or is there a better way to do it?

Thanks,
Andrew

On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 09:24:19AM -0300, Andrew Ijano wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 2:56 AM Andy Shevchenko
> <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 6:17 AM Andrew Ijano <andrew.ijano@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > The sca3000 driver is old and could be simplified by using newer
> > > infrastructure.
> >
> > I haven't found any reference to a base commit here. Have you
> > forgotten to use --base when preparing the series?
> > In any case, please clarify what this series is based on.
> 
> Thank you for pointing this out! I think I forgot to use --base for
> it. In this case, should I submit a new version of the whole patchset
> with this information or is there a better way to do it?

For now just reply here what is the base. I asked this question above.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 2:41 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 09:24:19AM -0300, Andrew Ijano wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 2:56 AM Andy Shevchenko
> > <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 6:17 AM Andrew Ijano <andrew.ijano@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The sca3000 driver is old and could be simplified by using newer
> > > > infrastructure.
> > >
> > > I haven't found any reference to a base commit here. Have you
> > > forgotten to use --base when preparing the series?
> > > In any case, please clarify what this series is based on.
> >
> > Thank you for pointing this out! I think I forgot to use --base for
> > it. In this case, should I submit a new version of the whole patchset
> > with this information or is there a better way to do it?
>
> For now just reply here what is the base. I asked this question above.
>

Ok! No problem. So the base for this patchset is the commit
3c23416f69f2870bea83697d7ab03c6a8497daa7.

Thanks,
Andrew

On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 03:20:06PM -0300, Andrew Ijano wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 2:41 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@intel.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 09:24:19AM -0300, Andrew Ijano wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 2:56 AM Andy Shevchenko
> > > <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 6:17 AM Andrew Ijano <andrew.ijano@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The sca3000 driver is old and could be simplified by using newer
> > > > > infrastructure.
> > > >
> > > > I haven't found any reference to a base commit here. Have you
> > > > forgotten to use --base when preparing the series?
> > > > In any case, please clarify what this series is based on.
> > >
> > > Thank you for pointing this out! I think I forgot to use --base for
> > > it. In this case, should I submit a new version of the whole patchset
> > > with this information or is there a better way to do it?
> >
> > For now just reply here what is the base. I asked this question above.
> 
> Ok! No problem. So the base for this patchset is the commit
> 3c23416f69f2870bea83697d7ab03c6a8497daa7.

No such commit in the repository. :-(
You are doing something interesting here [1].

So, make sure you are based on the iio/testing or so, make sure that the base
commit is the one that may be found on git.kernel.org. Use that in the next
version. Due to above this version is ambiguous to even start reviewing it.

[1] I have connected IIO subsystem as a remote, so I have access to many trees
from kernel.org (but not to all of them).

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 12:23 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 03:20:06PM -0300, Andrew Ijano wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 2:41 PM Andy Shevchenko
> > <andriy.shevchenko@intel.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 09:24:19AM -0300, Andrew Ijano wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 2:56 AM Andy Shevchenko
> > > > <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 6:17 AM Andrew Ijano <andrew.ijano@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The sca3000 driver is old and could be simplified by using newer
> > > > > > infrastructure.
> > > > >
> > > > > I haven't found any reference to a base commit here. Have you
> > > > > forgotten to use --base when preparing the series?
> > > > > In any case, please clarify what this series is based on.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for pointing this out! I think I forgot to use --base for
> > > > it. In this case, should I submit a new version of the whole patchset
> > > > with this information or is there a better way to do it?
> > >
> > > For now just reply here what is the base. I asked this question above.
> >
> > Ok! No problem. So the base for this patchset is the commit
> > 3c23416f69f2870bea83697d7ab03c6a8497daa7.
>
> No such commit in the repository. :-(
> You are doing something interesting here [1].
>
> So, make sure you are based on the iio/testing or so, make sure that the base
> commit is the one that may be found on git.kernel.org. Use that in the next
> version. Due to above this version is ambiguous to even start reviewing it.
>
> [1] I have connected IIO subsystem as a remote, so I have access to many trees
> from kernel.org (but not to all of them).
>

Hi, Andy. Sorry for the late response.

Actually, I think I didn't fully understand this part of the
contribution process and that's what was causing confusion.
Basically, the base commit appeared in the previous version of this
patchset but I removed it after it was approved, to prevent it from
being reviewed again. However, I think I could just add the
reviewed-by tag.

I'll send a next version with other corrections and the missing commit
based on iio/testing.

Thanks,
Andrew

Sat, Jul 05, 2025 at 12:03:37AM -0300, Andrew Ijano kirjoitti:
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 12:23 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@intel.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 03:20:06PM -0300, Andrew Ijano wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 2:41 PM Andy Shevchenko
> > > <andriy.shevchenko@intel.com> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 09:24:19AM -0300, Andrew Ijano wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 2:56 AM Andy Shevchenko
> > > > > <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 6:17 AM Andrew Ijano <andrew.ijano@gmail.com> wrote:

...

> > > > > > I haven't found any reference to a base commit here. Have you
> > > > > > forgotten to use --base when preparing the series?
> > > > > > In any case, please clarify what this series is based on.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you for pointing this out! I think I forgot to use --base for
> > > > > it. In this case, should I submit a new version of the whole patchset
> > > > > with this information or is there a better way to do it?
> > > >
> > > > For now just reply here what is the base. I asked this question above.
> > >
> > > Ok! No problem. So the base for this patchset is the commit
> > > 3c23416f69f2870bea83697d7ab03c6a8497daa7.
> >
> > No such commit in the repository. :-(
> > You are doing something interesting here [1].
> >
> > So, make sure you are based on the iio/testing or so, make sure that the base
> > commit is the one that may be found on git.kernel.org. Use that in the next
> > version. Due to above this version is ambiguous to even start reviewing it.
> >
> > [1] I have connected IIO subsystem as a remote, so I have access to many trees
> > from kernel.org (but not to all of them).
> 
> Actually, I think I didn't fully understand this part of the
> contribution process and that's what was causing confusion.
> Basically, the base commit appeared in the previous version of this
> patchset but I removed it after it was approved, to prevent it from
> being reviewed again. However, I think I could just add the
> reviewed-by tag.
> 
> I'll send a next version with other corrections and the missing commit
> based on iio/testing.

What you just described is a normal process of rebasing your local tree against
the (updated) upstream branch (in this case we are taling about iio/testing or
iio/togreg whichever suits better). Hence, if the commit was approved, the new
base should be provided. Under "approved" means that it made the subsystem tree
and pending for the upstream.


-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko