On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 10:18:35AM +0200, Lothar Rubusch wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 9:38 AM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 11:21:01PM +0200, Lothar Rubusch wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 12:17 PM Andy Shevchenko
> > > <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Jun 22, 2025 at 03:50:09PM +0000, Lothar Rubusch wrote:
...
> > > > > - if (val == 0) {
> > > > > + if (val_int == 0 && val_fract == 0) {
> > >
> > > The case for 0sec, 0.0 or setting "0" and fract will consequently be
> > > "0". 0 is an invalid input for this period and sensor, so it will
> > > default to an optimized period based on given ODR.
> > >
> > > > > + /* Generated inactivity time based on ODR */
> > > > > ret = regmap_read(st->regmap, ADXL345_REG_BW_RATE, ®val);
> > > > > if (ret)
> > > > > return ret;
> > > >
> > > > > odr = FIELD_GET(ADXL345_BW_RATE_MSK, regval);
> > > > > val = clamp(max_boundary - adxl345_odr_tbl[odr][0],
> > > > > min_boundary, max_boundary);
> > > > > + st->inact_time_ms = MILLI * val;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + /* Inactivity time in s */
> > > > > + return regmap_write(st->regmap, ADXL345_REG_TIME_INACT, val);
> > > > > + } else if (val_int == 0 && val_fract > 0) {
> > > >
> > > > val_fract check is not needed here.
> > >
> > > Case for e.g. 0.123, numbers under 1s. This goes into the free-fall register.
> >
> > 0.0 is already checked above, and since the val_fract is unsigned this is check
> > is redundant.
> >
> > > > > + /* time < 1s, free-fall */
> > > > > +
> > > > > + /*
> > > > > + * Datasheet max. value is 255 * 5000 us = 1.275000 seconds.
> > > > > + *
> > > > > + * Recommended values between 100ms and 350ms (0x14 to 0x46)
> > > > > + */
> > > > > + st->inact_time_ms = DIV_ROUND_UP(val_fract, MILLI);
> > > > > +
> > > > > + return regmap_write(st->regmap, ADXL345_REG_TIME_FF,
> > > > > + DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(val_fract, 5));
> > > > > + } else if (val_int > 0) {
> > > >
> > > > if now is redundant here, right?
> > >
> > > So, this will be 1s through 255s. Periods above 1sec. This goes into
> > > the inactivity register.
> >
> > See above,
> >
>
> I agree, that checking for val_fract is actually done as a sub case of
> val_int, and only if val_int was 0. So, would the following make it
> clearer?
>
> if (val_int == 0) {
> if (val_fract == 0) {
> // 0 provided, default values
> } else {
> // >0s, e.g. 0.123s, use free-fall register
> } else {
> // 1s - 255s, use inactivity register
> }
>
> Actually - I did not touch that - I saw some places where I'm already
> using nested if/else in the third level. I guess, by the style advice
> according to switch/case, this also applies to if/else, right?
>
> If yes, when the according parts go into another round, I might give
> it a try to separate as well using helper functions.
You can think through the patches. It might make sense to consider as well this
helper_1()
{
// for default
}
helper_2()
{
// for free-fall
}
helper_3()
{
// for inactive
}
...
if ()
helper_1();
else if ()
helper_2();
else
helper_3();
> > > > > + /* Time >= 1s, inactivity */
> > > > > + st->inact_time_ms = MILLI * val_int;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + return regmap_write(st->regmap, ADXL345_REG_TIME_INACT, val_int);
> > > > > }
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
