linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] iio: pressure: driver for Honeywell HSC/SSC series

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: <ZWdzz7VzCW5ctend@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 29 Nov 2023 19:24:31 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Petre Rodan <petre.rodan@...dimension.ro>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
        Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
        Angel Iglesias <ang.iglesiasg@...il.com>,
        Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com>,
        Andreas Klinger <ak@...klinger.de>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] iio: pressure: driver for Honeywell HSC/SSC series

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 07:04:12PM +0200, Petre Rodan wrote:
> Adds driver for digital Honeywell TruStability HSC and SSC series
> pressure and temperature sensors.
> Communication is one way. The sensor only requires 4 bytes worth of
> clock pulses on both i2c and spi in order to push the data out.
> The i2c address is hardcoded and depends on the part number.
> There is no additional GPIO control.

...

> v6: modifications based on Andy's review
>     - use str_has_prefix(), match_string() instead of strncmp()

And why not using the respective property API for that case where
match_string() is used?

I'm also a bit tired to repeat about:
- capitalization and punctuation in the multi-line comments;
- broken indentation is some cases.

Otherwise it's a good stuff, I leave it now to Jonathan.

...

> +	tmp = div_s64(((s64)(hsc->pmax - hsc->pmin)) * MICRO,
> +		      hsc->outmax - hsc->outmin);
> +	hsc->p_scale = div_s64_rem(tmp, NANO, &hsc->p_scale_dec);
> +	tmp = div_s64(((s64)hsc->pmin * (s64)(hsc->outmax - hsc->outmin)) *
> +		      MICRO, hsc->pmax - hsc->pmin);

Why not put MICRO on the previous line?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko