linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 08/10] iio: adc: ad7606: change r/w

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: <20250201125317.1de8d599@jic23-huawei>
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2025 12:53:17 +0000
From: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
To: David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com>
Cc: Angelo Dureghello <adureghello@...libre.com>, Michael Hennerich
 <michael.hennerich@...log.com>, Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>, Rob
 Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor
 Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Alexandru Ardelean <aardelean@...libre.com>,
 Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>,
 linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Guillaume Stols
 <gstols@...libre.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 08/10] iio: adc: ad7606: change r/w_register
 signature

On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 15:31:18 -0600
David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com> wrote:

> On 1/29/25 5:03 AM, Angelo Dureghello wrote:
> > From: Guillaume Stols <gstols@...libre.com>
> > 
> > The register read/write with IIO backend will require to claim the
> > direct mode, and doing so requires passing the corresponding iio_dev
> > structure.
> > So we need to modify the function signature to pass the iio_dev
> > structure.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Guillaume Stols <gstols@...libre.com>
> > ---  
> I don't think calling iio_device_claim_direct_mode() inside there reg_read/write
> functions is the right place to do that. It should be done at a higher level (in
> case we need to combine multiple reads/writes in an atomic operation). So I
> think we should drop this patch.
> 

I think this is a tricky corner if it is only needed when the backend is
involved. Not sure what the best answer is as we probably don't want the
higher levels having to comprehend that it is sometimes needed and sometimes
not.  Maybe fine to add it in all cases, but that sounds like it risks an
ABI change.

Jonathan