linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/6] iio: adc: ad7173: Add support for AD411x devices

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: <20240406161031.6192f4f4@jic23-huawei>
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2024 16:10:31 +0100
From: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
To: David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com>
Cc: "Ceclan, Dumitru" <mitrutzceclan@...il.com>, dumitru.ceclan@...log.com,
 Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>, Michael Hennerich
 <Michael.Hennerich@...log.com>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof
 Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>, Conor Dooley
 <conor+dt@...nel.org>, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] iio: adc: ad7173: Add support for AD411x devices


> >  
> > >> +               case IIO_CURRENT:
> > >> +                       *val = ad7173_get_ref_voltage_milli(st, ch->cfg.ref_sel);
> > >> +                       *val /= AD4111_SHUNT_RESISTOR_OHM;
> > >> +                       *val2 = chan->scan_type.realbits - !!(ch->cfg.bipolar);  
> > >
> > > Static analysis tools like to complain about using bool as int.
> > > Probably more clear to write it as (ch->cfg.bipolar ? 1 : 0) anyway.
> > >  
> > Maybe it does not apply here, but i followed this advice:
> >
> > Andy Shevchenko V1 of AD7173 (named initially ad717x)
> > "  
> > > +     return (bool)(value & mask);  
> >
> > This is weird. You have int which you get from bool, wouldn't be better
> > to use
> > !!(...) as other GPIO drivers do?  
> 
> As long as the build bots don't complain, there isn't a reason to
> change it. It is just a matter of personal preference at that point.
> 
> I got a sparse warning for something like this recently [1], but maybe
> that case was just because it was inside of a FIELD_PREP() using it as
> bit logic instead of addition and we won't get any warnings here.
> 
> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iio/20240129195611.701611-3-dlechner@baylibre.com/

It was common to use !! for a number of years, but then it got a
comment from Linus Torvalds making reasonable point that it isn't
easy to read, so slight preference these days is for a ternary.