linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] iio: adc: max1027: Prepare the introduction of different resolutions

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]

Date:   Mon, 7 Oct 2019 12:03:08 +0200
From:   Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
To:     Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
Cc:     Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@....de>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
        Peter Meerwald-Stadler <pmeerw@...erw.net>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] iio: adc: max1027: Prepare the introduction of
 different resolutions

Hi Jonathan,

> >  
> > +#define MAX1X27_CHANNELS(depth)			\
> > +	MAX1027_T_CHAN,				\
> > +	MAX1027_V_CHAN(0, depth),		\
> > +	MAX1027_V_CHAN(1, depth),		\
> > +	MAX1027_V_CHAN(2, depth),		\
> > +	MAX1027_V_CHAN(3, depth),		\
> > +	MAX1027_V_CHAN(4, depth),		\
> > +	MAX1027_V_CHAN(5, depth),		\
> > +	MAX1027_V_CHAN(6, depth),		\
> > +	MAX1027_V_CHAN(7, depth)
> > +
> > +#define MAX1X29_CHANNELS(depth)			\
> > +	MAX1027_V_CHAN(8, depth),		\
> > +	MAX1027_V_CHAN(9, depth),		\
> > +	MAX1027_V_CHAN(10, depth),		\
> > +	MAX1027_V_CHAN(11, depth)
> > +  
> 
> Modify this a touch so the macro for MAX1X29_CHANNELS includes
> MAX1X27_CHANNELS.  That way each macro's name matches what it
> does rather than the 'additional channels' for that device.

Sure.

> 
> > +#define MAX1X31_CHANNELS(depth)			\
> > +	MAX1027_V_CHAN(12, depth),		\
> > +	MAX1027_V_CHAN(13, depth),		\
> > +	MAX1027_V_CHAN(14, depth),		\
> > +	MAX1027_V_CHAN(15, depth)
> > +
> >  static const struct iio_chan_spec max1027_channels[] = {
> > -	MAX1027_T_CHAN,
> > -	MAX1027_V_CHAN(0),
> > -	MAX1027_V_CHAN(1),
> > -	MAX1027_V_CHAN(2),
> > -	MAX1027_V_CHAN(3),
> > -	MAX1027_V_CHAN(4),
> > -	MAX1027_V_CHAN(5),
> > -	MAX1027_V_CHAN(6),
> > -	MAX1027_V_CHAN(7)
> > +	MAX1X27_CHANNELS(10)
> >  };
> >  
> >  static const struct iio_chan_spec max1029_channels[] = {
> > -	MAX1027_T_CHAN,
> > -	MAX1027_V_CHAN(0),
> > -	MAX1027_V_CHAN(1),
> > -	MAX1027_V_CHAN(2),
> > -	MAX1027_V_CHAN(3),
> > -	MAX1027_V_CHAN(4),
> > -	MAX1027_V_CHAN(5),
> > -	MAX1027_V_CHAN(6),
> > -	MAX1027_V_CHAN(7),
> > -	MAX1027_V_CHAN(8),
> > -	MAX1027_V_CHAN(9),
> > -	MAX1027_V_CHAN(10),
> > -	MAX1027_V_CHAN(11)
> > +	MAX1X27_CHANNELS(10),
> > +	MAX1X29_CHANNELS(10)
> >  };
> >  
> >  static const struct iio_chan_spec max1031_channels[] = {
> > -	MAX1027_T_CHAN,
> > -	MAX1027_V_CHAN(0),
> > -	MAX1027_V_CHAN(1),
> > -	MAX1027_V_CHAN(2),
> > -	MAX1027_V_CHAN(3),
> > -	MAX1027_V_CHAN(4),
> > -	MAX1027_V_CHAN(5),
> > -	MAX1027_V_CHAN(6),
> > -	MAX1027_V_CHAN(7),
> > -	MAX1027_V_CHAN(8),
> > -	MAX1027_V_CHAN(9),
> > -	MAX1027_V_CHAN(10),
> > -	MAX1027_V_CHAN(11),
> > -	MAX1027_V_CHAN(12),
> > -	MAX1027_V_CHAN(13),
> > -	MAX1027_V_CHAN(14),
> > -	MAX1027_V_CHAN(15)
> > +	MAX1X27_CHANNELS(10),
> > +	MAX1X29_CHANNELS(10),
> > +	MAX1X31_CHANNELS(10)
> >  };
> >  
> >  static const unsigned long max1027_available_scan_masks[] = {
> > @@ -181,6 +171,7 @@ static const unsigned long max1031_available_scan_masks[] = {
> >  struct max1027_chip_info {
> >  	const struct iio_chan_spec *channels;
> >  	unsigned int num_channels;
> > +	unsigned int depth;  
> 
> Could we use the channel real_bits field instead of replicating the info?

I'll try. Indeed I would prefer not to replicate the info.


Thanks,
Miquèl