linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 08/14] iio: bmg160_core: Simplify using devm_regulator_*get

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:   Sat, 20 Aug 2022 12:38:04 +0100
From:   Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
To:     "Vaittinen, Matti" <Matti.Vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
        Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
        Miaoqian Lin <linmq006@...il.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Xiang wangx <wangxiang@...rlc.com>,
        linux-iio <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 08/14] iio: bmg160_core: Simplify using
 devm_regulator_*get_enable()

On Sat, 20 Aug 2022 06:19:00 +0000
"Vaittinen, Matti" <Matti.Vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com> wrote:

> Thanks for the review Andy
> 
> On 8/20/22 02:30, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 10:21 PM Matti Vaittinen
> > <mazziesaccount@...il.com> wrote:  
> >>
> >> Use devm_regulator_bulk_get_enable() instead of open coded bulk-get,
> >> bulk-enable, add-action-to-disable-at-detach - pattern.  
> > 
> > ...
> >   
> >>   int bmg160_core_probe(struct device *dev, struct regmap *regmap, int irq,
> >>                        const char *name)
> >>   {
> >>          struct bmg160_data *data;
> >>          struct iio_dev *indio_dev;
> >>          int ret;
> >> +       static const char * const regulators[] = {"vdd", "vddio"};  
> > 
> > Please, keep this following the "longest line first" rule. Note, in  
> 
> This was not following the (IMO slightly silly) rule even prior my 
> patch. I can for sure move my line up - but that won't give you the 
> "reverse X-mas tree".
> 
> I don't have any real objections on changing the styling though - I 
> don't expect this to be merged before the dependency is in rc1 - so I 
> guess I will anyways need to respin this for next cycle. I can do the 
> styling then.
I was a bit surprised Mark didn't do an immutable branch for this, but
indeed looks like it's going to be a multiple cycle thing - so we'll
probably have a bunch of new cases introduced in the meantime that
we need to tidy up.  Ah well.

> 
> > this case you even can move it out of the function, so we will see
> > clearly that this is (not a hidden) global variable.  
> 
> Here I do disagree with you. Moving the array out of the function makes 
> it _much_ less obvious it is not used outside this function. Reason for 
> making is "static const" is to allow the data be placed in read-only 
> area (thanks to Guenter who originally gave me this tip).
> 
> > P.S. Same applies for the rest of the similar places in your series.
> >   
> 
> Br,
> 	-- Matti
>