linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 6/8] iio: adc: Support ROHM BD79124 ADC

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: <Z91mnHP9V0yRZ2js@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2025 15:16:12 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com>
Cc: Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>,
	Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
	Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>, Nuno Sa <nuno.sa@...log.com>,
	David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com>,
	Javier Carrasco <javier.carrasco.cruz@...il.com>,
	Olivier Moysan <olivier.moysan@...s.st.com>,
	Guillaume Stols <gstols@...libre.com>,
	Dumitru Ceclan <mitrutzceclan@...il.com>,
	Trevor Gamblin <tgamblin@...libre.com>,
	Matteo Martelli <matteomartelli3@...il.com>,
	Alisa-Dariana Roman <alisadariana@...il.com>,
	João Paulo Gonçalves <joao.goncalves@...adex.com>,
	AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 6/8] iio: adc: Support ROHM BD79124 ADC

On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 02:17:16PM +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> On 21/03/2025 14:06, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 10:01:00AM +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> > > On 20/03/2025 15:16, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 10:22:00AM +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> > 
> > You can get rid of all of these by simply using __le16. I do not understand why
> > it's not used so far. I thought that bits are mirrored, that may explain the
> > case, but now I do not see any problem to use __le16 directly.
> 
> This discussion is going in circles now. That was discussed in the RFC
> review with Jonathan, which I did also tell to you during the v7 review:

Yes, because I think we all were confused by the bits representations,
but now I see it clearly and I do not understand why should we go the way
you suggested as it makes things a bit tangled in my opinion.

Jonathan, do you still think the two separate bytes are better than __le16?
If so, what are the pros of this solution?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko