linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 1/3] iio: temperature: mlx90632 Add runtime powermanagement modes

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20221009173606.5b8e5661@jic23-huawei>
Date:   Sun, 9 Oct 2022 17:36:06 +0100
From:   Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
To:     Crt Mori <cmo@...exis.com>
Cc:     Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>,
        andy.shevchenko@...il.com, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/3] iio: temperature: mlx90632 Add runtime
 powermanagement modes

On Mon, 3 Oct 2022 10:20:18 +0200
Crt Mori <cmo@...exis.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 2 Oct 2022 at 18:09, Christophe JAILLET
> <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr> wrote:
> >
> > Le 22/09/2022 à 10:13, cmo-fc6wVz46lShBDgjK7y7TUQ@...lic.gmane.org a écrit :  
> > > From: Crt Mori <cmo-fc6wVz46lShBDgjK7y7TUQ@...lic.gmane.org>
> > > measurements in lower power mode (SLEEP_STEP), with the lowest refresh
> > > rate (2 seconds).  
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > should there be a v7, a few nitpick below.
> >  
> It was already applied, but I can spin a new patch for the suggested
> changes (the s32 is mostly there because before this patch it was
> returning value for further bit manipulation).

Follow on patch welcome!

Thanks,

Jonathan

> 
> > >
> > > +     ret = regmap_read_poll_timeout(data->regmap, MLX90632_REG_STATUS,
> > > +                                    reg_status,
> > > +                                    (reg_status & MLX90632_STAT_BUSY) == 0,
> > > +                                    10000, 100 * 10000);
> > > +     if (ret < 0) {
> > > +             dev_err(&data->client->dev, "data not ready");
> > > +             return -ETIMEDOUT;  
> >
> > Why not "return ret;"?
> >  
> If you came to this point there were already several i2c reads, so I
> think it is more important to convert those to timeout.
> 
> > >       mutex_lock(&data->lock);
> > > -     measurement = mlx90632_perform_measurement(data);
> > > -     if (measurement < 0) {
> > > -             ret = measurement;
> > > +     ret = mlx90632_set_meas_type(data, MLX90632_MTYP_MEDICAL);
> > > +     if (ret < 0)
> > > +             goto read_unlock;
> > > +
> > > +     switch (data->powerstatus) {
> > > +     case MLX90632_PWR_STATUS_CONTINUOUS:
> > > +             measurement = mlx90632_perform_measurement(data);  
> >
> >    ret = mlx90632_perform_measurement(data);
> > and
> >    measurement = ret;
> > on success would be less verbose (no need for {}, and save 1 LoC) and
> > more in line with mlx90632_calculate_dataset_ready_time() above.
> >  
> I wanted to change as few lines as possible to avoid clogging the
> patch with unrelated changes. Also in most cases, we will be
> in-success here, so limiting the number of variable copies in the
> success path should be the priority.