linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 2/2] hwmon: (pmbus/adp1050): Support adp1051 and adp1055

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:
 <PH0PR03MB6351F678D8FDC9C28174E9EBF15C2@PH0PR03MB6351.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2024 01:17:04 +0000
From: "Torreno, Alexis Czezar" <AlexisCzezar.Torreno@...log.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Guenter Roeck
	<linux@...ck-us.net>
CC: "linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org" <linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Sabau, Radu
 bogdan" <Radu.Sabau@...log.com>,
        Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.com>, Rob
 Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
        Conor
 Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/2] hwmon: (pmbus/adp1050): Support adp1051 and adp1055


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
> Sent: Thursday, November 7, 2024 12:01 AM
> To: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
> Cc: Torreno, Alexis Czezar <AlexisCzezar.Torreno@...log.com>; linux-
> doc@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org;
> devicetree@...r.kernel.org; linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org; Sabau, Radu
> bogdan <Radu.Sabau@...log.com>; Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.com>; Rob
> Herring <robh@...nel.org>; Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>; Conor
> Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>; Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>; Uwe
> Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] hwmon: (pmbus/adp1050): Support adp1051 and
> adp1055
> 
> [External]
> 
> On Wed, Nov 06, 2024 at 07:55:30AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On 11/6/24 03:24, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 06, 2024 at 05:03:11PM +0800, Alexis Cezar Torreno wrote:
> > > > ADP1051: 6 PWM for I/O Voltage, I/O Current, Temperature
> > > > ADP1055: 6 PWM for I/O Voltage, I/O Current, Power, Temperature
> > >
> > > Missing blank line and perhaps you can add Datasheet: tag(s) for these HW?
> > > (see `git log --no-merges --grep Datasheet:` for the example)
> >
> > Is that an official tag ? Frankly, if so, I think it is quite useless
> > in the patch description because datasheet locations keep changing.
> > I think it is much better to provide a link in the driver documentation.
> 
> I believe it's semi-official, meaning that people use it from time to time.
> I'm fine with the Link in the documentation. Actually with any solution that
> saves the respective link in the kernel source tree (either in form of commit
> message or documentation / comments in the code).
> 

Will add the blank line after description. 
Am I right to understand that we leave this as is? No need to add driver link
in patch description since it is in driver documentation?

> ...
> 
> > > > +static struct pmbus_driver_info adp1055_info = {
> > > > +	.pages = 1,
> > > > +	.format[PSC_VOLTAGE_IN] = linear,
> > > > +	.format[PSC_VOLTAGE_OUT] = linear,
> > > > +	.format[PSC_CURRENT_IN] = linear,
> > > > +	.format[PSC_TEMPERATURE] = linear,
> > > > +	.func[0] = PMBUS_HAVE_VIN | PMBUS_HAVE_IIN |
> PMBUS_HAVE_VOUT
> > > > +		   | PMBUS_HAVE_IOUT | PMBUS_HAVE_TEMP2 |
> PMBUS_HAVE_TEMP3
> > > > +		   | PMBUS_HAVE_POUT | PMBUS_HAVE_STATUS_VOUT
> > > > +		   | PMBUS_HAVE_STATUS_IOUT |
> PMBUS_HAVE_STATUS_INPUT
> > > > +		   | PMBUS_HAVE_STATUS_TEMP,
> > >
> > > Ditto.
> >
> > That one slipped through with the original driver submission.
> > I thought that checkpatch complains about that, but it turns out that
> > it doesn't. I agree, though, that the usual style should be used.
> 
> Oh, okay, that's up to you then.
> 
> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
> 

I based my code style on the original, but I agree that the usual style
should be followed.  
I will change it to follow the usual style.
Should I leave the original untouched or should I format it too?

Regards,
Alexis