linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4] iio: adc: ad4000: Add support for PulSAR 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: <a1852540-eeb4-4d92-a381-185014c828ac@baylibre.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2024 11:14:56 -0600
From: David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com>
To: Marcelo Schmitt <marcelo.schmitt@...log.com>, lars@...afoo.de,
 Michael.Hennerich@...log.com, jic23@...nel.org, robh@...nel.org,
 krzk+dt@...nel.org, conor+dt@...nel.org, marcelo.schmitt1@...il.com
Cc: linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] iio: adc: ad4000: Add support for PulSAR devices

On 11/14/24 5:51 PM, Marcelo Schmitt wrote:
> The AD4000 series and the single-channel PulSAR series of devices have
> similar SPI transfer specifications and wiring configurations.
> Single-channel PulSAR devices are slower than AD4000, and don't have a
> configuration register. That taken into account, single-channel PulSARs can
> be supported by the ad4000 driver without any increase in code complexity.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Marcelo Schmitt <marcelo.schmitt@...log.com>
> ---
>  drivers/iio/adc/ad4000.c | 163 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 163 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/ad4000.c b/drivers/iio/adc/ad4000.c
> index 68ac77494263..8e31b42534f5 100644
> --- a/drivers/iio/adc/ad4000.c
> +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/ad4000.c
> @@ -137,6 +137,41 @@ static const struct ad4000_time_spec ad4020_t_spec = {
>  	.t_quiet2_ns = 60,
>  };
>  
> +/* AD7983, AD7984 */
> +static const struct ad4000_time_spec ad7983_t_spec = {
> +	.t_conv_ns = 500,

I'm sure there are diffing opinions on this but I would prefer
an explicit .t_quiet2_ns = 0, so we know that it wasn't omitted
on accident. Or a group comment to say that these chips don't need
any quite time.

In any case...

Reviewed-by: David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com>