| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20090304162716.131baff0@hyperion.delvare>
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 16:27:16 +0100
From: Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: djwong@...ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
lm-sensors@...sensors.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lm90: Support the MAX6648/6692 chips
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 00:04:12 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 08:47:46 +0100 Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi Andrew,
> >
> > On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 15:04:26 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 13:01:06 -0800
> > > "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...ibm.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > @@ -776,7 +776,12 @@ static int lm90_detect(struct i2c_client *new_client, int kind,
> > > > && (reg_config1 & 0x3f) == 0x00
> > > > && reg_convrate <= 0x07) {
> > > > kind = max6646;
> > > > - }
> > > > + } else
> > > > + /* The MAX6648/6692 chips have a working man/chip id
> > > > + * and the same register set as the 6657.
> > > > + */
> > > > + if (chip_id == 0x59 && address == 0x4C)
> > > > + kind = max6657;
> > > > }
> > >
> > > gack, the indenting and layout there is totally busted.
> >
> > This specific layout is consistently used through the whole function,
> > and checkpatch.pl doesn't complain about it. While unconventional, it
> > has its advantages, in particular it avoids extra indentation that
> > would make some lines too long. At any rate it doesn't make sense to
> > change this last chunk without changing all the rest if this layout is
> > deemed unacceptable.
>
> lol, be serious.
>
> > > --- a/drivers/hwmon/lm90.c~lm90-support-the-max6648-6692-chips-fix
> > > +++ a/drivers/hwmon/lm90.c
> > > @@ -776,12 +776,14 @@ static int lm90_detect(struct i2c_client
> > > && (reg_config1 & 0x3f) == 0x00
> > > && reg_convrate <= 0x07) {
> > > kind = max6646;
> > > - } else
> > > - /* The MAX6648/6692 chips have a working man/chip id
> > > - * and the same register set as the 6657.
> > > - */
> > > - if (chip_id == 0x59 && address == 0x4C)
> > > + } else if (chip_id == 0x59 && address == 0x4C) {
> > > + /*
> > > + * The MAX6648/6692 chips have a working
> > > + * man/chip id and the same register set as the
> > > + * 6657.
> > > + */
> > > kind = max6657;
> > > + }
> > > }
> > >
> > > if (kind <= 0) { /* identification failed */
> >
> > I thus nack this change of yours.
>
> Something like this...
>
> diff -puN drivers/hwmon/lm90.c~drivers-hwmon-lm90c-fix-coding-style drivers/hwmon/lm90.c
> --- a/drivers/hwmon/lm90.c~drivers-hwmon-lm90c-fix-coding-style
> +++ a/drivers/hwmon/lm90.c
> @@ -694,22 +694,22 @@ static int lm90_detect(struct i2c_client
> LM90_REG_R_CONVRATE)) < 0)
> return -ENODEV;
>
> - if ((address == 0x4C || address == 0x4D)
> - && man_id == 0x01) { /* National Semiconductor */
> + if ((address == 0x4C || address == 0x4D) && man_id == 0x01) {
> + /* National Semiconductor */
> int reg_config2;
>
> if ((reg_config2 = i2c_smbus_read_byte_data(new_client,
> LM90_REG_R_CONFIG2)) < 0)
> return -ENODEV;
>
> - if ((reg_config1 & 0x2A) == 0x00
> - && (reg_config2 & 0xF8) == 0x00
> - && reg_convrate <= 0x09) {
> - if (address == 0x4C
> - && (chip_id & 0xF0) == 0x20) { /* LM90 */
> + if ((reg_config1 & 0x2A) == 0x00 &&
> + (reg_config2 & 0xF8) == 0x00 &&
> + reg_convrate <= 0x09) {
> + if (address == 0x4C &&
> + (chip_id & 0xF0) == 0x20) { /* LM90 */
> kind = lm90;
> - } else
> - if ((chip_id & 0xF0) == 0x30) { /* LM89/LM99 */
> + } else if ((chip_id & 0xF0) == 0x30) {
> + /* LM89/LM99 */
> kind = lm99;
> dev_info(&adapter->dev,
> "Assuming LM99 chip at "
> @@ -720,27 +720,24 @@ static int lm90_detect(struct i2c_client
> "loading the lm90 driver\n",
> i2c_adapter_id(adapter),
> address);
> - } else
> - if (address == 0x4C
> - && (chip_id & 0xF0) == 0x10) { /* LM86 */
> + } else if (address == 0x4C &&
> + (chip_id & 0xF0) == 0x10) { /* LM86 */
> kind = lm86;
> }
> }
> - } else
> - if ((address == 0x4C || address == 0x4D)
> - && man_id == 0x41) { /* Analog Devices */
> - if ((chip_id & 0xF0) == 0x40 /* ADM1032 */
> - && (reg_config1 & 0x3F) == 0x00
> - && reg_convrate <= 0x0A) {
> + } else if ((address == 0x4C || address == 0x4D) &&
> + man_id == 0x41) {
> + /* Analog Devices */
> + if ((chip_id & 0xF0) == 0x40 && /* ADM1032 */
> + (reg_config1 & 0x3F) == 0x00 &&
> + reg_convrate <= 0x0A) {
> kind = adm1032;
> - } else
> - if (chip_id == 0x51 /* ADT7461 */
> - && (reg_config1 & 0x1B) == 0x00
> - && reg_convrate <= 0x0A) {
> + } else if (chip_id == 0x51 && /* ADT7461 */
> + (reg_config1 & 0x1B) == 0x00 &&
> + reg_convrate <= 0x0A) {
> kind = adt7461;
> }
> - } else
> - if (man_id == 0x4D) { /* Maxim */
> + } else if (man_id == 0x4D) { /* Maxim */
> /*
> * The MAX6657, MAX6658 and MAX6659 do NOT have a
> * chip_id register. Reading from that address will
> @@ -750,31 +747,32 @@ static int lm90_detect(struct i2c_client
> * will be those of the previous read, so in our case
> * those of the man_id register.
> */
> - if (chip_id == man_id
> - && (address == 0x4C || address == 0x4D)
> - && (reg_config1 & 0x1F) == (man_id & 0x0F)
> - && reg_convrate <= 0x09) {
> + if (chip_id == man_id &&
> + (address == 0x4C || address == 0x4D) &&
> + (reg_config1 & 0x1F) == (man_id & 0x0F) &&
> + reg_convrate <= 0x09) {
> kind = max6657;
> - } else
> - /* The chip_id register of the MAX6680 and MAX6681
> - * holds the revision of the chip.
> - * the lowest bit of the config1 register is unused
> - * and should return zero when read, so should the
> - * second to last bit of config1 (software reset)
> - */
> - if (chip_id == 0x01
> - && (reg_config1 & 0x03) == 0x00
> - && reg_convrate <= 0x07) {
> + } else if (chip_id == 0x01 &&
> + (reg_config1 & 0x03) == 0x00 &&
> + reg_convrate <= 0x07) {
> + /*
> + * The chip_id register of the MAX6680 and
> + * MAX6681 holds the revision of the chip.
> + * the lowest bit of the config1 register is
> + * unused and should return zero when read, so
> + * should the second to last bit of config1
> + * (software reset)
> + */
> kind = max6680;
> - } else
> - /* The chip_id register of the MAX6646/6647/6649
> - * holds the revision of the chip.
> - * The lowest 6 bits of the config1 register are
> - * unused and should return zero when read.
> - */
> - if (chip_id == 0x59
> - && (reg_config1 & 0x3f) == 0x00
> - && reg_convrate <= 0x07) {
> + } else if (chip_id == 0x59 &&
> + (reg_config1 & 0x3f) == 0x00 &&
> + reg_convrate <= 0x07) {
> + /*
> + * The chip_id register of the MAX6646/6647/6649
> + * holds the revision of the chip.
> + * The lowest 6 bits of the config1 register are
> + * unused and should return zero when read.
> + */
> kind = max6646;
> } else if (chip_id == 0x59 && address == 0x4C) {
> /*
Yes, something like this. But you know, the lm90 driver has a dedicated
maintainer, so you don't need to take care about this driver personally.
--
Jean Delvare
--
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