linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 08/13] iio: chemical: bme680: add power management

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: <ZwreoHXXLkf3DjMt@surfacebook.localdomain>
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2024 23:40:00 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: Vasileios Aoiridis <vassilisamir@...il.com>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>, jic23@...nel.org,
	lars@...afoo.de, robh@...nel.org, krzk+dt@...nel.org,
	conor+dt@...nel.org, anshulusr@...il.com, gustavograzs@...il.com,
	linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 08/13] iio: chemical: bme680: add power management

Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 09:02:32PM +0200, Vasileios Aoiridis kirjoitti:
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 01:10:20PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 11:00:25PM +0200, vamoirid wrote:

...

> > > +extern const struct dev_pm_ops bmp280_dev_pm_ops;
> > 
> > Is pm.h being included already in this header? Otherwise you need to add it.
> 
> No it is not, and indeed I need to add it. Probably because it was
> included by some other file I didn't get an error from gcc?

Yeah, it's called a "proxy" header in general meaning. We should try hard not
to use such headers (meaning not to use them in a "proxy" mode).

...

> > >  	struct regmap *regmap;
> > >  	struct bme680_calib bme680;
> > >  	struct mutex lock; /* Protect multiple serial R/W ops to device. */
> > > +	struct device *dev;
> > 
> > Is it the same that you may get wia regmap_get_device()?
> > 
> 
> Yes it is the same. Maybe I can try and see if I can use the following
> 
> 	regmap_get_device(data->regmap)
> 
> in the places where the pm functions are used in order to not declare a
> new value inside the struct bme680_data. But in general, is this approach
> prefered?

Since there is a getter already available, I prefer not to shortcut it via
adding a duplicating information to the data structure.

> > >  	u8 oversampling_temp;
> > >  	u8 oversampling_press;
> > >  	u8 oversampling_humid;

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko