linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] hwmon: driver for TI tmp102 temperature 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <201002041317.37574.sfking@fdwdc.com>
Date:	Thu, 4 Feb 2010 13:17:37 -0800
From:	Steven King <sfking@...dc.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>, lm-sensors@...sensors.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hwmon: driver for TI tmp102 temperature sensor

On Thursday 04 February 2010 10:22:03 Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 17:23:49 -0800
>
> Steven King <sfking@...dc.com> wrote:
> > The TI TMP102 is similar to the lm75.  It differs from the lm75 by having
> > a 16 bit conf register and the temp registers have a minimum resolution
> > of 12bits; the extended conf register can select 13 bit resolution (which
> > this driver does) and also change the update rate (which this driver
> > currently doesn't use).
>
> A neat little driver.

Thanks.

> checkpatch spits this warning:
>
>     WARNING: struct dev_pm_ops should normally be const
>     #387: FILE: drivers/hwmon/tmp102.c:300:
>     +static struct dev_pm_ops tmp102_dev_pm_ops = {
>
> which seems truthful enough.

Indeed.   I am, however, somewhat surprised since I ran the patch thru 
checkpatch before posting it and no errors or warnings were reported.  Is 
there a version of checkpatch other than the one included in the tree that I 
should be using?

>
> And doing this will hurt readers' brains less:
>
>
>
> Use conventional array-walk loop.

Ah yes, an idiosyncrasy of mine in preferring do while over for loops 
especially when I 'know' the initial test will pass.  Whatever is the 
preferred idiom for the kernel is fine with me.

-- 
Steven King -- sfking at fdwdc dot com
--
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/