linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] iio: accel: kxcjk-1013: Add support for KX023-1025

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:   Tue, 11 May 2021 16:38:06 +0200
From:   Stephan Gerhold <stephan@...hold.net>
To:     Michał Mirosław <mirq-linux@...e.qmqm.pl>
Cc:     Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Robert Yang <decatf@...il.com>, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
        ~postmarketos/upstreaming@...ts.sr.ht,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] iio: accel: kxcjk-1013: Add support for KX023-1025

Hi Michał,

On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 04:28:47PM +0200, Michał Mirosław wrote:
> On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 11:54:06AM +0200, Stephan Gerhold wrote:
> > KX023-1025 [1] is another accelerometer from Kionix that has lots
> > of additional functionality compared to KXCJK-1013. It combines the
> > motion interrupt functionality from KXCJK with the tap detection
> > from KXTF9, plus a lot more other functionality.
> 
> When I researched KXTF9 support it occurred to me that the -10xx part is
> duplicating the information in 'KXyyy' - it seems to be a project number
> or something. I would suggest to use just 'kx023' prefix for the code
> and DT but leave the full identification in the comments/description.
> 

There do seem to be two different KXTF9 from Kionix, a KXTF9-4100 [1]
and a KXTF9-2050 [2] with separate datasheets. Have you checked if there
is a meaningful difference between them?

In any case, I think for KX023 there is only KX023-1025,
so I suppose I can omit it. I used KX023-1025 as name mostly for
consistency, although I did change the convention a bit already since
"kionix,kx0231025" was terribly readable.

So both the current "kionix,kx023-1025" and "kionix,kx023" would be fine
with me, any other opinions?

Thanks!
Stephan

[1]: https://kionixfs.azureedge.net/en/datasheet/KXTF9-4100%20Specifications%20Rev%206.pdf
[2]: https://kionixfs.azureedge.net/en/datasheet/KXTF9-2050%20Specifications%20Rev%207.pdf