linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/5] iio: adc: ad7380: use spi_optimize

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: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 12:59:01 -0600
From: David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com>
To: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
Cc: Nuno Sá <noname.nuno@...il.com>, 
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, Martin Sperl <kernel@...tin.sperl.org>, 
	David Jander <david@...tonic.nl>, Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>, 
	Michael Hennerich <michael.hennerich@...log.com>, Nuno Sá <nuno.sa@...log.com>, 
	Alain Volmat <alain.volmat@...s.st.com>, Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>, 
	Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>, linux-spi@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com, 
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] iio: adc: ad7380: use spi_optimize_message()

On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 11:31 AM Jonathan Cameron
<Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 17:08:19 +0100
> Nuno Sá <noname.nuno@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2024-02-13 at 09:27 -0600, David Lechner wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 3:47 AM Nuno Sá <noname.nuno@...il.com> wrote:
> > > >

..

> > > > Am I missing something?
> > >
> > > No, your understanding is correct for the current state of everything
> > > in this series. So, we could do as you suggest, but I have a feeling
> > > that future additions to this driver might require that it gets
> > > changed back this way eventually.
> >
> > Hmm, not really sure about that as chip_info stuff is always our friend :). And
> > I'm anyways of the opinion of keeping things simpler and start to evolve when
> > really needed (because often we never really need to evolve). But bah, as I
> > said... this is really not a big deal.
> >
> Oops should have read Nuno's review before replying!
>
> I'd rather we embedded it for now and did the optimization at probe.
> Whilst it's a lot of work per transfer it's not enough to worry about delaying
> it until preenable().  Easy to make that move and take it dynamic when
> driver changes need it.  In meantime, I don't want lots of other drivers
> picking up this pattern when they may never need the complexity of
> making things more dynamic.
>

Noted.