linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/9] media: i2c: ds90ub960: Replace aliased clients list with address list

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: <54985f33-a15a-4d9e-89ff-8999802e3a35@ideasonboard.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2025 15:32:54 +0200
From: Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@...asonboard.com>
To: Romain Gantois <romain.gantois@...tlin.com>
Cc: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>,
 Kory Maincent <kory.maincent@...tlin.com>, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-media@...r.kernel.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
 Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>,
 Luca Ceresoli <luca.ceresoli@...tlin.com>, Andi Shyti
 <andi.shyti@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley
 <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Derek Kiernan <derek.kiernan@....com>,
 Dragan Cvetic <dragan.cvetic@....com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
 Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
 Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
 Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>, Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/9] media: i2c: ds90ub960: Replace aliased clients
 list with address list

Hi,

On 08/01/2025 15:27, Romain Gantois wrote:
> Hi Tomi,
> 
> On lundi 6 janvier 2025 10:34:10 heure normale d’Europe centrale Tomi
> Valkeinen wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 30/12/2024 15:22, Romain Gantois wrote:
> ...
>>> @@ -1031,17 +1031,17 @@ static int ub960_atr_attach_client(struct i2c_atr
>>> *atr, u32 chan_id,>
>>>    	struct device *dev = &priv->client->dev;
>>>    	unsigned int reg_idx;
>>>
>>> -	for (reg_idx = 0; reg_idx < ARRAY_SIZE(rxport->aliased_clients);
>>> reg_idx++) { -		if (!rxport->aliased_clients[reg_idx])
>>> +	for (reg_idx = 0; reg_idx < UB960_MAX_PORT_ALIASES; reg_idx++) {
>>
>> Any reason to drop the use of ARRAY_SIZE()? Usually when dealing with
>> fixed size arrays, it's nicer to use ARRAY_SIZE().
> 
> No reason in particular, I just thought it was more explicit to use ARRAY_SIZE
> but I'll keep the UB960_MAX_PORT_ALIASES since you think it's nicer.

You got that the wrong way. The driver uses ARRAY_SIZE, but you change 
it to UB960_MAX_PORT_ALIASES...

  Tomi