linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] iio: accel: kionix-kx022a: Add a function to retrieve number of bytes in buffer

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]

Message-ID: <20230422183626.2b351521@jic23-huawei>
Date:   Sat, 22 Apr 2023 18:36:26 +0100
From:   Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
To:     Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com>
Cc:     Mehdi Djait <mehdi.djait.k@...il.com>,
        krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org,
        andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] iio: accel: kionix-kx022a: Add a function to
 retrieve number of bytes in buffer

On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 09:14:10 +0300
Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com> wrote:

> Hi Mehdi,
> 
> Thanks for the v2!
> 
> On 4/20/23 23:22, Mehdi Djait wrote:
> > Since Kionix accelerometers use various numbers of bits to report data, a
> > device-specific function is required.  
> 
> I think this is the right approach. Thanks for adding this 
> device-specific function.
> 
> > Move the driver's private data to the header file to support the new function.  
> 
> Hmm. Why this move is necessary? I didn't immediately spot this struct 
> being used outside this C-file. I'd rather saw the struct in C-file if 
> possible.
> 
> > Make the allocation of the "buffer" array in the fifo_flush function dynamic
> > and more generic.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Mehdi Djait <mehdi.djait.k@...il.com>
> > ---
> > v2:
> > - separated this change from the chip_info introduction and made it a patch in v2  
> 
> I am unsure if this separation was needed. I'd only separate the "naming 
> changes" which bring no changes to code flow, and then patches which are 
> fixes and need to be backported (to minimize backporting effort and 
> impact to stable branches). Well, I am fine with this separation though, 
> seems like I am just making a noise here :).

I prefer them split.  I want to see a noop patch for refactors. It's easier
to quickly check it really makes no functional change.  Adding new
structures for a new device just adds noise to checking that.


> 
> > - changed the function from generic implementation for to device-specific one
> > - removed blank lines pointed out by checkpatch
> > - changed the allocation of the "buffer" array in __kx022a_fifo_flush
> > 
> >   drivers/iio/accel/kionix-kx022a.c | 72 +++++++++++++------------------
> >   drivers/iio/accel/kionix-kx022a.h | 37 ++++++++++++++++
> >   2 files changed, 66 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/iio/accel/kionix-kx022a.c b/drivers/iio/accel/kionix-kx022a.c
> > index 7f9a2c29790b..1c81ea1657b9 100644
> > --- a/drivers/iio/accel/kionix-kx022a.c
> > +++ b/drivers/iio/accel/kionix-kx022a.c
> > @@ -150,36 +150,6 @@ static const struct regmap_config kx022a_regmap_config = {
> >   	.cache_type = REGCACHE_RBTREE,
> >   };  
> 
> Yours,
> 	-- Matti
>