linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 8/8] rtc: isl12022: implement support for the #clock-cells DT property

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:   Wed, 14 Jun 2023 15:13:32 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
Cc:     Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@...ertech.it>,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 8/8] rtc: isl12022: implement support for the
 #clock-cells DT property

On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 12:51:47PM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> On 13/06/2023 17.25, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 03:00:10PM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:

...

> >> +#define ISL12022_INT_FO_MASK	GENMASK(3, 0)
> >> +#define ISL12022_INT_FO_OFF	0x0
> >> +#define ISL12022_INT_FO_32K	0x1
> > 
> > A nit-pick. Are they decimal or bit fields? 
> 
> -ENOPARSE. A number is a number. Its representation in C code may be
> decimal or hexadecimal (or...). And sure, 0 and 0x0 are different
> spellings of the same thing. The data sheet lists the possible values in
> terms of individual bits, so I suppose I could even do 0b0000 and
> 0b0001, but that's too unusual (even if perfectly acceptable by gcc).

What does datasheet define? bits or the value in a 4-bit field?
If bits, why don't you put it that way

#define ISL12022_INT_FO_OFF	0
#define ISL12022_INT_FO_32K	BIT(0)

?

It's a nit-pick, of course, but the nuance is that proposed form might give a
hint to the reader, current -- not.

> > To me seems like the 0x can be dropped.
> 
> Can, but won't, a single hex digit is more natural way to represent a
> four-bit field.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko