linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 6/6] iio: adc: ad4851: add ad485x driver

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: <704f4440-9699-48ef-acd7-e0bf9c4ae5b0@baylibre.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2024 11:08:18 -0500
From: David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>, Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
Cc: Antoniu Miclaus <antoniu.miclaus@...log.com>,
 Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
 Michael Hennerich <Michael.Hennerich@...log.com>,
 Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
 Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Nuno Sa <nuno.sa@...log.com>,
 Olivier Moysan <olivier.moysan@...s.st.com>,
 Uwe Kleine-König <ukleinek@...nel.org>,
 Marcelo Schmitt <marcelo.schmitt@...log.com>,
 Ivan Mikhaylov <fr0st61te@...il.com>,
 Marius Cristea <marius.cristea@...rochip.com>,
 Dumitru Ceclan <mitrutzceclan@...il.com>,
 João Paulo Gonçalves <joao.goncalves@...adex.com>,
 Alisa-Dariana Roman <alisadariana@...il.com>,
 Mike Looijmans <mike.looijmans@...ic.nl>,
 AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>,
 Sergiu Cuciurean <sergiu.cuciurean@...log.com>,
 Dragos Bogdan <dragos.bogdan@...log.com>, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/6] iio: adc: ad4851: add ad485x driver

On 10/15/24 6:11 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 08:15:15PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 16:14:27 +0300
>> Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 12:40:40PM +0300, Antoniu Miclaus wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
>>>> +config AD4851
>>>> +	tristate "Analog Device AD4851 DAS Driver"
>>>> +	depends on SPI
>>>> +	select REGMAP_SPI
>>>> +	select IIO_BACKEND
>>>> +	help
>>>> +	  Say yes here to build support for Analog Devices AD4851, AD4852,
>>>> +	  AD4853, AD4854, AD4855, AD4856, AD4857, AD4858, AD4858I high speed
>>>> +	  data acquisition system (DAS).  
>>>
>>> I think I already commented on this... Anyway, it's much better to support when
>>> this list is broke down on per device per line. In such a case it's less churn
>>> if we need to remove or add an entry in the future.
>>>
>>>> +	  To compile this driver as a module, choose M here: the module will be
>>>> +	  called ad4851.  
>>>
>>> Also, with all these devices to be supported why not ad485x as the name of
>>> the driver? Is it a preference by the IIO subsystem?
>>
>> Don't.  We've been bitten by too many cases of manufacturers noticing
>> a hole in their part numbers and 'slotting' something unrelated in.
>> So it just causes confusion.  Hence strong preference for any new code
>> is pick a name from the list.  The wild card also implies restrictions
>> that tend to break overtime when other part numbers outside the range
>> are used.  Not using a wildcard keeps it consistently wrong so people
>> get used to it :)
> 
> I see your point!
> 
> But shouldn't we have a formal criteria for choosing that one from the list?
> I would go with "most featured device" as it may be aligned with all enabled
> features that otherwise would be questionable / confusing for the chips that
> do not support them or support in a limited manner.
> 

I always go with the lowest number supported by the driver at the time
the driver was created. It is a simple, objective criteria and no one
has to spend time looking through features to decide which one is "best".