linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 4/8] rtc: isl12022: add support for trip level DT binding

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: <50f1066a-5c4c-540b-d69e-8ffe022cb860@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Date:   Mon, 19 Jun 2023 09:27:19 +0200
From:   Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
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 v3 4/8] rtc: isl12022: add support for trip level DT
 binding

On 15/06/2023 13.11, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 12:58:22PM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:

>> +static void isl12022_set_trip_levels(struct device *dev)
>> +{
>> +	struct regmap *regmap = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
>> +	u32 levels[2] = {0, 0};
> 
> A nit, 0, 0 is not needed, {} will do the job.

So? I'm not code-golfing, and here I really want to initialize to 0 (or
any value lower than the first entries in the trip_levels[] arrays so
that, lacking the DT property, the code ends up using what are the chip
reset defaults).

>> +	int ret, i, j, x[2];
>> +	u8 val, mask;
> 
> BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(x) != ARRAY_SIZE(levels)) ?

BUILD_BUG_ON doesn't make sense when these things are declared within a
few lines of each other _and_ since they're sized based on properties of
the hardware we're dealing with, nobody would ever have a reason to
change either. So no, that would IMO make it harder to read, because one
would stop and think "why is this obvious thing asserted?".

>> +	device_property_read_u32_array(dev, "isil,battery-trip-levels-microvolt",
>> +				       levels, 2);
> 
> A nit, ARRAY_SIZE(levels) ?
> 
>> +	for (i = 0; i < 2; i++) {
> 
> ARRAY_SIZE(x) ?

I considered that, but really didn't think it improved readability. I'll
defer to Alexandre on whether to change this.

Rasmus