linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] iio: kx022a: Fix acceleration value scaling

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:   Fri, 27 Oct 2023 14:33:35 +0100
From:   Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
To:     Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com>
Cc:     Jagath Jog J <jagathjog1996@...il.com>,
        Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
        Mehdi Djait <mehdi.djait.k@...il.com>,
        linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iio: kx022a: Fix acceleration value scaling

On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 09:24:39 +0300
Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com> wrote:

> On 10/20/23 19:48, Jagath Jog J wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 5:39 PM Matti Vaittinen
> > <mazziesaccount@...il.com> wrote:  
> >>
> >> On 10/19/23 21:21, Jagath Jog J wrote:  
> >>> Hi Matti,
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 6:54 PM Matti Vaittinen
> >>> <mazziesaccount@...il.com> wrote:  
> >>>>  
> >   
> >>>> I did only very quick testing on KX022A and iio_generic_buffer. After
> >>>> the patch the values seemed to be correct order of magnitude. Further
> >>>> testing is appreciated :)  
> >>>
> >>> Values are correct with this change, Thank you for fixing.
> >>> Tested-by: Jagath Jog J <jagathjog1996@...il.com>  
> >>
> >> Thanks a ton for testing! May I ask which component did you use (or did
> >> you just use some 'simulated' regster values?)  
> > 
> > Hi Matti,
> > 
> > I just simulated with the register values, Should the 'tested-by' tag only be
> > provided after hardware testing?  
> 
> I am not sure TBH. I didn't have a problem with your tag though, I was 
> merely curious to hear about the IC usage :)
> 
> Now that you mentioned the tested-by tag usage, I started to wonder it 
> as well. From pure SW/driver point of view the register value simulation 
> is sufficient - but in practice we are not interested in whether the 
> code works "in theory" - but whether the products do really work. This 
> is something which includes handling of potential HW quircks and 
> oddities - which are not always documented or known.
> 
> If we assume a case where someone is developing new gizmo and hits a bug 
> which is in reality caused by some undocumented HW hiccup - then fixes 
> with "tested-by" tags which are not actually tested on HW having this 
> hiccup but using SW simulation - may be misleading.
> 
> The above is just some overall pondering - I am not too concerned on 
> your tested-by tag :) Besides, it's cool you did the testing! I 
> appreciate that! However, I wonder if there is some wider consensus 
> whether the tests should be ran using real HW when tested-by tag is 
> given. Jonathan, do you have any educated opinion on this?

It's fine to add a note.  People typically do this if they've tested on
a particular device from a set.  So if you want to (entirely optional)

Tested-by .... #Tested by simulate register values

I wouldn't describe that as a particularly educated opinion though :)
Not something I care that much about.

J
> 
> > I referred to this driver because it's
> > the most recent accelerometer driver that was merged.  
> 
> Makes sense :) Thanks for replying!
> 
> Yours,
> 	-- Matti
>