linux-kernel - Re: [v2 06/10] iio: document bno055 private sysfs attributes

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, 4 Jan 2022 12:42:40 +0100
From:   Andrea Merello <andrea.merello@...il.com>
To:     Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
Cc:     Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>,
        linux-iio <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
        Matt Ranostay <matt.ranostay@...sulko.com>,
        Alexandru Ardelean <ardeleanalex@...il.com>,
        Jacopo Mondi <jacopo@...ndi.org>,
        Andrea Merello <andrea.merello@....it>
Subject: Re: [v2 06/10] iio: document bno055 private sysfs attributes

Sorry for the huge delay...

> There is still a units question though.  Should we express the ranges
> in _processed or _raw units?  Or do we make it explicit and call it
> rangeprocessed for example?  For some devices the range will naturally
> be expressed as the range of ADC raw values, so there is definite room
> for confusion if we don't make it clear in the name.
>
> I'm open to other suggestions of how we name this to avoid falling into
> any heffalump traps.

You are right: this might lead to confusion.. Making it explicit in
the name seems a good idea.

I've looked at other iio sysfs attributes in the DOC.  It seems  that
"thesh" and "roc" attributes allows for both preprocessed and raw
data: I found e.g. "<type>[Y][_name]_<raw|input>_thresh_value", but
the related "what" entries written above all seem to omit both "_raw"
and "_input"; I don't understand why.

In any case, maybe we can stick to that already-existent naming schema?

Assuming the pattern is correct, then wouldn't it be
"in_accel_raw_range"  (or "in_accel_x_raw_range", in case it could
have different values for each axis) or "in_accel_input_range" in case
range applies to preprocessed vals, etc ?

Andrea