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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 14:22:52 -0800 From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> To: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org> Cc: Lucas Oshiro <lucasseikioshiro@...il.com>, knaack.h@....de, lars@...afoo.de, pmeerw@...erw.net, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-usp@...glegroups.com, Anderson Reis <andersonreisrosa@...il.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] iio:potentiostat:lmp91000: add '\n' on dev_err On Wed, 2019-02-20 at 09:49 +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 13:01:23 -0800 Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 2019-02-18 at 14:22 -0300, Lucas Oshiro wrote: > > > Add missing '\n' at the end of dev_err message on line 215. > > [] > > > diff --git a/drivers/iio/potentiostat/lmp91000.c b/drivers/iio/potentiostat/lmp91000.c > > [] > > > @@ -212,7 +212,7 @@ static int lmp91000_read_config(struct lmp91000_data *data) > > > ret = of_property_read_u32(np, "ti,tia-gain-ohm", &val); > > > if (ret) { > > > if (!of_property_read_bool(np, "ti,external-tia-resistor")) { > > > - dev_err(dev, "no ti,tia-gain-ohm defined"); > > > + dev_err(dev, "no ti,tia-gain-ohm defined\n"); > > > > Perhaps a copy/paste error as the test is for > > external-tia-resistor and not tia-gain-ohm > > > It is an odd construct, but I think this is correct. What it is actually > saying is that, given that we don't have an external resistor, we care > that the tia-gain-ohm isn't set (otherwise it wouldn't matter). > > From the docs > - ti,external-tia-resistor: if the property ti,tia-gain-ohm is not defined this > needs to be set to signal that an external resistor value is being used. > > So, it might be ideal to say that tia-gain-ohm is not defined and we do > not have an external resistor specified. > > So not wrong, but could be more informative! So perhaps a follow up patch > to tidy that up would be good. Then thanks in advance for doing that. cheers, Joe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists