linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] iio: add struct declarations for iio types

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]

Date:   Sat, 3 Dec 2022 17:11:31 +0000
From:   Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
To:     Michael Riesch <michael.riesch@...fvision.net>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Gerald Loacker <gerald.loacker@...fvision.net>,
        linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Jakob Hauser <jahau@...ketmail.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Nikita Yushchenko <nikita.yoush@...entembedded.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] iio: add struct declarations for iio types

On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 15:26:51 +0100
Michael Riesch <michael.riesch@...fvision.net> wrote:

> Hi Andy,
> 
> On 11/28/22 15:05, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 02:48:48PM +0100, Michael Riesch wrote:  
> >> On 11/28/22 14:27, Andy Shevchenko wrote:  
> >>> On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 01:18:04PM +0100, Gerald Loacker wrote:  
> >>>> Am 25.11.2022 um 12:01 schrieb Andy Shevchenko:  
> > 
> > ...
> >   
> >>> It's a rule to use _t for typedef:s in the kernel. That's why
> >>> I suggested to leave struct definition and only typedef the same structures
> >>> (existing) to new names (if needed).  
> >>
> >> Andy, excuse our ignorance but we are not sure how this typedef approach
> >> is supposed to look like...
> >>  
> >>>> or  
> >>>  
> >>>> 	typedef iio_val_int_plus_micro iio_val_int_plus_micro_db;  
> >>
> >> ... because
> >>
> >> #include <stdio.h>
> >>
> >> struct iio_val_int_plus_micro {
> >> 	int integer;
> >> 	int micro;
> >> };
> >>
> >> typedef iio_val_int_plus_micro iio_val_int_plus_micro_db;
> >>
> >> int main()
> >> {
> >>   struct iio_val_int_plus_micro a = { .integer = 100, .micro = 10, };
> >>   struct iio_val_int_plus_micro_db b = { .integer = 20, .micro = 10, };
> >>   return 0;
> >> }
> >>
> >> won't compile.  
> > 
> > I see. Thanks for pointing this out.
> > 
> > Then the question is why do we need the two same structures with different
> > names?  
> 
> Most probably we don't need "struct iio_val_int_plus_micro_db" at all
> since IIO_VAL_INT_PLUS_MICRO_DB and IIO_VAL_INT_PLUS_MICRO get the same
> treatment in industrialio-core.c. At least it should not be introduced
> in the scope of this series. In the end this is up to whoever writes the
> first driver using the common data structures and IIO_VAL_INT_PLUS_MICRO_DB.

They get same treatment today because we don't attempt to deal with
IIO_VAL_INT_PLUS_MICRO_DB in conjunction with any of the analog circuit type
front ends yet. Mind you, even though the handling in iio-rescale.c will be
different if anyone ever adds support for the DB form (I shudder at the maths
of combining this with other scale factors), I don't see the possibility meaning
we need a different structure.  

Jonathan


> 
> Best regards,
> Michael
>