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: <20140210195516.07405462@endymion.delvare>
Date:	Mon, 10 Feb 2014 19:55:16 +0100
From:	Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>
To:	Laszlo Papp <lpapp@....org>
Cc:	Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>, Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, lm-sensors@...sensors.org
Subject: Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] hwmon: (max6650) Rename the device ids to
  contain the hwmon suffix

On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 18:27:07 +0000, Laszlo Papp wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 5:43 PM, Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de> wrote:
> > On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 16:58:53 +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> >> > > Might be worth taking the opportunity to swap out these magic numbers
> >> > > now.
> >> >
> >> > There's nothing magic about them, they tell the driver how many fans
> >> > each device supports. If you don't pass them as driver_data you'll have
> >> > to derive them from the device name in the probe function.
> >>
> >> They're magic in that they're not easily identifiable. In the few
> >> moments that I looked at the patch I assumed they were device
> >> IDs. They should be clearly defined.
> >
> > They could have been device IDs, some drivers do that, and that would
> > have been equally fine. driver_data can be anything. Best thing to do
> > is to document it right above the device id array if you really find it
> > confusing (I don't.) I don't know what else exactly you had in mind,
> > but #defining FOUR_FANS as 4 and ONE_FAN as 1 and using that doesn't
> > strike me as the best coding practice.
> 
> Err... no. 1/4 fan is not the only difference between max6650 and
> max6651 ... (might be worth looking up the datasheet).

This is the only difference the driver cared about so far, so the code
made sense. If the driver is extended to support features which differ
between the MAX6650 and MAX6651 then it will make sense to revisit, of
course.

-- 
Jean Delvare
Suse L3 Support
--
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

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ