linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] hwmon: (lm90) use macro defines for the status bit

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: <20131030163326.4e7e0cfc@endymion.delvare>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2013 16:33:26 +0100
From:	Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>
To:	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc:	Wei Ni <wni@...dia.com>, thierry.reding@...il.com,
	lm-sensors@...sensors.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] hwmon: (lm90) use macro defines for the status
 bit

Hi Guenter,

On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 10:33:22 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 06:57:27PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > Unrelated to this patch, but Guenter, I am worried about the MAX6696
> > handling here. I realize that I am the one who accepted your code, but
> > now it looks wrong. Specifically:
> > * We check for (status2 & 0xfe) i.e. 7 alarm bits, but the code below
> >   only reports 2 alarms bits. So if any of the 5 other alarm bits in
> >   STATUS2 are, we may return true (chip is tripped) but not print the
> >   cause.
> > * At least bits 1 and 2 of STATUS 2 fit totally fine in the driver as
> >   it currently exists, so I can't think of any reason for not handling
> >   them. Why are we not? Ideally we should print a message for every
> >   alarm bit so that we never return "true" without printing a message.
> >   Even though OT2 limits aren't handled by the driver...
> > * If you think this piece of code shouldn't deal with OT/THERM limits
> >   because they do not trigger an SMBus alarm, this can be discussed,
> >   but all chips should be handled the same in this respect then.
> > * Why in the first place is max6696's data->alert_alarms set to 0x187c
> >   and not 0x1c7c? Including 1OPEN but not 2OPEN makes no sense.
> 
> I am about to leave for vacation, so this will have to wait for a couple of
> weeks. I'll look at it after I am back.

Are you back now? ;-)

-- 
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/