[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jLeYO4dNxs7n9Bt97A6N0b48uuXhLjq0bsfF=k5OaSrmA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 17:23:31 -0800
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
Cc: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@....de>,
Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
Peter Meerwald-Stadler <pmeerw@...erw.net>,
linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Gwendal Grignou <gwendal@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iio: cros_ec_accel_legacy: Mark expected switch fall-throughs
On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 10:47 AM Gustavo A. R. Silva
<gustavo@...eddedor.com> wrote:
> Yeah. Actually, we can even take the switch and for out of the equation,
> and the code can be rewritten as follows:
>
> ec_accel_channels[X].scan_index = Y;
> ec_accel_channels[Y].scan_index = X;
> ec_accel_channels[Z].scan_index = Z;
>
> if (state->sensor_num == MOTIONSENSE_LOC_LID)
> state->sign[X] = state->sign[Z] = -1;
> else
> state->sign[X] = state->sign[Y] = state->sign[Z] = 1;
Actually, should be an unconditional "state->sign[Y] = 1", but
otherwise, yes. Can you send that patch?
> > Agreed, it's 'novel'. Waiting for Gwendal or someone else to come
> > back and check it wasn't meant to be doing something else.
>
> We've been waiting 5 months for Gwendal. :/
I've looked at this enough. I'm happy to Ack it, if that helps. :)
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists