linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH V10 2/2] iio: proximity: aw96103: Add support for aw96103/aw96105 proximity sensor

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20240905193105.16a4a060@jic23-huawei>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2024 19:31:05 +0100
From: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
To: wangshuaijie@...nic.com
Cc: lars@...afoo.de, robh@...nel.org, krzk+dt@...nel.org,
 conor+dt@...nel.org, kees@...nel.org, gustavoars@...nel.org,
 linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org,
 andy.shevchenko@...il.com, liweilei@...nic.com, kangjiajun@...nic.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V10 2/2] iio: proximity: aw96103: Add support for
 aw96103/aw96105 proximity sensor

On Wed,  4 Sep 2024 11:35:55 +0000
wangshuaijie@...nic.com wrote:

> From: shuaijie wang <wangshuaijie@...nic.com>
> 
> AW96103 is a low power consumption capacitive touch and proximity controller.
> Each channel can be independently config as sensor input, shield output.
> 
> Channel Information:
>   aw96103: 3-channel
>   aw96105: 5-channel
> 
> Signed-off-by: shuaijie wang <wangshuaijie@...nic.com>
Once a series had been applied, send patches on top.
That means if you want to adopt Andy's suggestions then break
it up into a series where each patch is a particular type of change.

That allows rapid review in comparison with sending the thing
all over again. As such I've just fixed the early return issue directly.


Some of the changes would be rejected.
> +
> +#define FAR			0x00
> +#define TRIGGER_TH0		BIT(24)
> +#define TRIGGER_TH1		(BIT(24) | BIT(16))
> +#define TRIGGER_TH2		(BIT(24) | BIT(16) | BIT(8))
> +#define TRIGGER_TH3		(BIT(24) | BIT(16) | BIT(8) | BIT(0))
> +#define TRIGGER_TH_MASK		(BIT(24) | BIT(16) | BIT(8) | BIT(0))
No. If you want to use BIT then each BIT needs a meaningful define.
If the bit's on their own convey no useful meaning then define these
differently.

Jonathan