linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] iio: pressure: Add timestamp and scan

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: <20240309181233.189abfaf@jic23-huawei>
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2024 18:12:33 +0000
From: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Vasileios Amoiridis <vassilisamir@...il.com>, lars@...afoo.de,
 ang.iglesiasg@...il.com, mazziesaccount@...il.com, ak@...klinger.de,
 petre.rodan@...dimension.ro, phil@...pberrypi.com, 579lpy@...il.com,
 linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] iio: pressure: Add timestamp and scan_masks for
 BMP280 driver

On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 21:07:09 +0200
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 07:50:17PM +0100, Vasileios Amoiridis wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 01:47:47PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:  
> > > On Sun, Mar 03, 2024 at 05:52:59PM +0100, Vasileios Amoiridis wrote:  
> 
> ...
> 
> > > > +enum bmp280_scan {
> > > > +	BMP280_TEMP,
> > > > +	BMP280_PRESS,
> > > > +	BME280_HUMID,
> > > > +};  
> > > 
> > > Hmm... Why do we need to actually copy the IIO ones? Can't we use IIO ones
> > > directly (or in some way)?  
> > 
> > What do you mean exactly by copying the IIO ones? These values are used as
> > indexes to enable channels in the avail_scan_masks below.  
> 
> Yeah, I have now an answer to my question. The IIO drivers provide these lists
> as mapping between available channels (as starting from 0) and real channels
> as per IIO specifications (which can be anything, although limited currently
> by 40 or so).
> 

These are the scan indexes. It would be better to specify them as such
in the channel definitions so that the two sets of values are forced to match.

Jonathan