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: <ed5bc103-1ce2-46ec-9649-03b11ae591a7@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2025 15:41:18 +0200
From: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.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 21/03/2025 15:16, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> 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?

I don't think Jonathan thought this is better. I'm not sure if you read 
the RFC conversation.

I told this is easier for me to understand. Jonathan merely told he can 
live with that. For this particular driver it matters because I'm 
expecting to be maintaining it. It's easier to maintain code which one 
can understand, and if subsystem maintainer can live with it, then I 
suppose it's the pro you are looking for.

Yours,
	-- Matti