linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 2/4] hwmon: max31827: Add support for max31828 and max31829

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <84252c5e-9a39-91bd-b7da-2bdea1b2aff6@roeck-us.net>
Date:   Fri, 27 Oct 2023 07:51:43 -0700
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:     "Matyas, Daniel" <Daniel.Matyas@...log.com>
Cc:     Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        "linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org" <linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/4] hwmon: max31827: Add support for max31828 and
 max31829

On 10/27/23 06:00, Matyas, Daniel wrote:
[ ... ]

>> I also don't understand why that would be chip specific. I don't see
>> anything along that line in the datasheet.
>>
>> Ah, wait ... I guess that is supposed to reflect the chip default.
>> I don't see why the chip default makes a difference - a well defined default
>> must be set either way. Again, there is no guarantee that the chip is in its
>> default state when the driver is loaded.
> 
> The well defined default was set in v4, but I deleted it, because the default value in hex for max31827 and max31828 alarm polarity, and max31827 fault queue is 0x0. I had 2 #defines for these values, but you said:
> " Since MAX31827_ALRM_POL_LOW is 0, this code doesn't really do anything and just pollutes the code."
> 
> So, I thought I should remove it altogether, since res is set to 0 in the beginning and the default value of these chips (i.e. 0) is implicitly set.
> 
>>
>> Also, why are the default values added in this patch and not in the
>> previous patch ?
>>
> 
> In v4 these default values were set in the previous patch.
>   

I asked you (or meant to ask you) to stop overwriting 0 with 0
in a variable. I didn't mean to ask you (if I did) to stop writing
the default value into the chip. Sorry if I did; if so, that was
a misunderstanding.

Guenter