| 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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 02:40:41 +0300
From: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>
To: Shreeya Patel <shreeya.patel@...labora.com>, jic23@...nel.org,
lars@...afoo.de, robh+dt@...nel.org, Zhigang.Shi@...eon.com,
krisman@...labora.com
Cc: linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...labora.com,
alvaro.soliverez@...labora.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] iio: light: Add support for ltrf216a sensor
Hello Shreeya,
...
> +#include <linux/init.h>
> +#include <linux/mod_devicetable.h>
You may safely remove these includes because module.h always provides them.
> +#include <linux/module.h>
> +#include <linux/mutex.h>
> +#include <linux/pm.h>
> +#include <linux/iio/iio.h>
> +#include <asm/unaligned.h>
> +
> +#define LTRF216A_DRV_NAME "ltrf216a"
This define doesn't bring much benefits, you may use "ltrf216a" directly
in the code.
> +#define LTRF216A_MAIN_CTRL 0x00
> +
> +#define LTRF216A_ALS_DATA_STATUS BIT(3)
> +#define LTRF216A_ALS_ENABLE_MASK BIT(1)
> +
> +#define LTRF216A_ALS_MEAS_RES 0x04
> +#define LTRF216A_MAIN_STATUS 0x07
> +#define LTRF216A_CLEAR_DATA_0 0x0A
> +
Is any reason for separating these regs with a newline? If no, then you
may remove this newline.
> +#define LTRF216A_ALS_DATA_0 0x0D
> +
...
> +struct ltrf216a_data {
> + struct i2c_client *client;
> + u32 int_time;
> + u16 int_time_fac;
> + u8 als_gain_fac;
> + /*
> + * Ensure cached value of integration time is consistent
> + * with hardware setting and remains constant during a
> + * measurement of Lux.
> + */
> + struct mutex mutex;
I'd rename the "mutex" -> "lock".
> +};
> +
> +/* open air. need to update based on TP transmission rate. */
> +#define WIN_FAC 1
Usually all defines are placed before the code. You may move this define
before struct ltrf216a_data.
...
> +static int ltrf216a_init(struct iio_dev *indio_dev)
> +{
> + int ret;
> + struct ltrf216a_data *data = iio_priv(indio_dev);
Reverse Xmas tree is a common coding style in kernel for the function
variables.
******
****
**
Will be great if you could use the same coding style everywhere in this
source file, i.e. like this:
struct ltrf216a_data *data = iio_priv(indio_dev);
int ret;
> + ret = i2c_smbus_read_byte_data(data->client, LTRF216A_MAIN_CTRL);
> + if (ret < 0) {
> + dev_err(&data->client->dev, "Error reading LTRF216A_MAIN_CTRL\n");
> + return ret;
> + }
> +
> + /* enable sensor */
> + ret |= FIELD_PREP(LTRF216A_ALS_ENABLE_MASK, 1);
> + ret = i2c_smbus_write_byte_data(data->client, LTRF216A_MAIN_CTRL, ret);
> + if (ret < 0) {
> + dev_err(&data->client->dev, "Error writing LTRF216A_MAIN_CTRL\n");
This message doesn't tell us the error code, which usually is very handy
to know.
I'd also change all the error messages in this driver to tell which
action failed, like this:
dev_err(dev, "Failed to enable sensor: %d\n", ret);
> + return ret;
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int ltrf216a_disable(struct iio_dev *indio_dev)
> +{
> + int ret;
> + struct ltrf216a_data *data = iio_priv(indio_dev);
> +
> + ret = i2c_smbus_write_byte_data(data->client, LTRF216A_MAIN_CTRL, 0);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + dev_err(&data->client->dev, "Error writing LTRF216A_MAIN_CTRL\n");
Please add error code to the message here too and reword it. This is
exactly the same error message as in ltrf216a_init(), so you can't
distinguish whether it's enabling or disabling that failed.
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> +static void als_ltrf216a_disable(void *data)
> +{
> + struct iio_dev *indio_dev = data;
> +
> + ltrf216a_disable(indio_dev);
> +}
> +
> +static int ltrf216a_set_int_time(struct ltrf216a_data *data, int itime)
> +{
> + int i, ret, index = -1;
> + u8 reg_val;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(ltrf216a_int_time_available); i++) {
> + if (ltrf216a_int_time_available[i][1] == itime) {
> + index = i;
> + break;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + if (index < 0)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + reg_val = ltrf216a_int_time_reg[index][1];
> + data->int_time_fac = ltrf216a_int_time_reg[index][0];
> +
> + ret = i2c_smbus_write_byte_data(data->client, LTRF216A_ALS_MEAS_RES, reg_val);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + return ret;
Won't hurt to add error message here for consistency.
> + data->int_time = itime;
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int ltrf216a_get_int_time(struct ltrf216a_data *data, int *val, int *val2)
> +{
> + *val = 0;
> + *val2 = data->int_time;
> + return IIO_VAL_INT_PLUS_MICRO;
> +}
> +
> +static int ltrf216a_read_data(struct ltrf216a_data *data, u8 addr)
> +{
> + int ret = -1, tries = 25;
No need to initialize the ret variable.
> + u8 buf[3];
> +
> + while (tries--) {
> + ret = i2c_smbus_read_byte_data(data->client, LTRF216A_MAIN_STATUS);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + return ret;
Need error message
> + if (ret & LTRF216A_ALS_DATA_STATUS)
> + break;
> + msleep(20);
> + }
> +
> + ret = i2c_smbus_read_i2c_block_data(data->client, addr, sizeof(buf), buf);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + return ret;
Same here
..
> +MODULE_AUTHOR("Shi Zhigang <Zhigang.Shi@...eon.com>");
Driver could have multiple MODULE_AUTHOR(), you may add yourself here:
MODULE_AUTHOR("Shreeya Patel <shreeya.patel@...labora.com>")
Powered by blists - more mailing lists