| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2015 12:19:55 +0100
From: Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@....de>
To: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@...el.com>
CC: lars@...afoo.de, pmeerw@...erw.net, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/10] iio: imu: kmx61: Drop odr_bits from
kmx61_samp_freq_table
Jonathan Cameron schrieb am 04.01.2015 um 11:55:
> On 01/01/15 13:53, Hartmut Knaack wrote:
>> Daniel Baluta schrieb am 23.12.2014 um 14:22:
>>> odr_bits values are between 0 and 11, so we can use the index
>>> in kmx61_samp_freq_table instead of odr_bits structure member.
>> Basically looking good, but I would feel more comfortable to check
>> against the boundaries of the table. Please see inline.
>>
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@...el.com>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/iio/imu/kmx61.c | 64 ++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------------
>>> 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/iio/imu/kmx61.c b/drivers/iio/imu/kmx61.c
>>> index eb3900e..98369eb 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/iio/imu/kmx61.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/iio/imu/kmx61.c
>>> @@ -169,19 +169,18 @@ u16 kmx61_uscale_table[] = {9582, 19163, 38326};
>>> static const struct {
>>> int val;
>>> int val2;
>>> - u8 odr_bits;
>>> -} kmx61_samp_freq_table[] = { {12, 500000, 0x00},
>>> - {25, 0, 0x01},
>>> - {50, 0, 0x02},
>>> - {100, 0, 0x03},
>>> - {200, 0, 0x04},
>>> - {400, 0, 0x05},
>>> - {800, 0, 0x06},
>>> - {1600, 0, 0x07},
>>> - {0, 781000, 0x08},
>>> - {1, 563000, 0x09},
>>> - {3, 125000, 0x0A},
>>> - {6, 250000, 0x0B} };
>>> +} kmx61_samp_freq_table[] = { {12, 500000},
>>> + {25, 0},
>>> + {50, 0},
>>> + {100, 0},
>>> + {200, 0},
>>> + {400, 0},
>>> + {800, 0},
>>> + {1600, 0},
>>> + {0, 781000},
>>> + {1, 563000},
>>> + {3, 125000},
>>> + {6, 250000} };
>>>
>>> static const struct {
>>> int val;
>>> @@ -302,24 +301,10 @@ static int kmx61_convert_freq_to_bit(int val, int val2)
>>> for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(kmx61_samp_freq_table); i++)
>>> if (val == kmx61_samp_freq_table[i].val &&
>>> val2 == kmx61_samp_freq_table[i].val2)
>>> - return kmx61_samp_freq_table[i].odr_bits;
>>> - return -EINVAL;
>>> -}
>>> -
>>> -static int kmx61_convert_bit_to_freq(u8 odr_bits, int *val, int *val2)
>>> -{
>>> - int i;
>>> -
>>> - for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(kmx61_samp_freq_table); i++)
>>> - if (odr_bits == kmx61_samp_freq_table[i].odr_bits) {
>>> - *val = kmx61_samp_freq_table[i].val;
>>> - *val2 = kmx61_samp_freq_table[i].val2;
>>> - return 0;
>>> - }
>>> + return i;
>>> return -EINVAL;
>>> }
>>>
>>> -
>>> static int kmx61_convert_wake_up_odr_to_bit(int val, int val2)
>>> {
>>> int i;
>>> @@ -478,7 +463,7 @@ static int kmx61_set_odr(struct kmx61_data *data, int val, int val2, u8 device)
>>>
>>> static int kmx61_get_odr(struct kmx61_data *data, int *val, int *val2,
>>> u8 device)
>>> -{ int i;
>>> +{
>>> u8 lodr_bits;
>>>
>>> if (device & KMX61_ACC)
>>> @@ -490,13 +475,13 @@ static int kmx61_get_odr(struct kmx61_data *data, int *val, int *val2,
>>> else
>>> return -EINVAL;
>>>
>>> - for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(kmx61_samp_freq_table); i++)
>>> - if (lodr_bits == kmx61_samp_freq_table[i].odr_bits) {
>>> - *val = kmx61_samp_freq_table[i].val;
>>> - *val2 = kmx61_samp_freq_table[i].val2;
>>> - return 0;
>>> - }
>>> - return -EINVAL;
>>> + if (lodr_bits > 0xB)
>> Since we use it as an index, I regard it safer to check against
>> ARRAY_SIZE(kmx61_samp_freq_table) rather than a fix value.
> Makes sense to me as well - though obviously ARRAY_SIZE(kmx61_samp_freq_table) is
> 0xC (12) rather than 0xB (11) so you'll need a minus 1
>
Instead of subtracting, I would favor this one:
if !(lodr_bits < ARRAY_SIZE(...))
Or this one:
if (lodr_bits >= ARRAY_SIZE(...))
> I'll leave this one for a new spin.
>>
>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>> +
>>> + *val = kmx61_samp_freq_table[lodr_bits].val;
>>> + *val2 = kmx61_samp_freq_table[lodr_bits].val2;
>>> +
>>> + return 0;
>>> }
>>>
>>> static int kmx61_set_range(struct kmx61_data *data, u8 range)
>>> @@ -580,8 +565,11 @@ static int kmx61_chip_init(struct kmx61_data *data)
>>> }
>>> data->odr_bits = ret;
>>>
>>> - /* set output data rate for wake up (motion detection) function */
>>> - ret = kmx61_convert_bit_to_freq(data->odr_bits, &val, &val2);
>>> + /*
>>> + * set output data rate for wake up (motion detection) function
>>> + * to match data rate for accelerometer sampling
>>> + */
>>> + ret = kmx61_get_odr(data, &val, &val2, KMX61_ACC);
>>> if (ret < 0)
>>> return ret;
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists