On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 10:55:26 +0200 Lothar Rubusch <l.rubusch@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, Jun 8, 2025 at 5:27 PM Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 17:21:32 +0000 > > Lothar Rubusch <l.rubusch@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > Rework controlling measurement and standby of the sensor. Therefore, > > > replace writing the register directly by encapsulating this and dealing > > > with the return value in a separte function to enable and disable > > > measurement. This will help to avoid redundant code in all locations > > > where the sensor configuration needs to be adjusted, thus measurement will > > > be set to standby, in follow up patches. > > > > > > Further, reduce the control mask to only the measurement bit. The sleep bit > > > actually controls a different behavior (not just putting the sensor to > > > standby for configuration, but turning it into sleep mode) and it is not > > > used so far. In consequence, there is no need to cover sleep bit and > > > measurement with the same mask. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Lothar Rubusch <l.rubusch@xxxxxxxxx> > > This is a good bit to have as a precursor patch (as you have done) > > because it is refactoring the existing code. It doesn't stand on it's > > own though given for now there is only one caller, so I won't pick it up > > until the patch that uses it is ready to go. > > > > So, I'll leave this patch (in case I might refrase the commit message, > and I hope this is ok). I'm going to merge [v4 02/11] [v4 05/11] and > [v4 06/11] for a v5. Let me know if I got this wrong. > Sounds good to me. J
