linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] iio: imu: inv

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAHp75VeUYyjZqLsxS8BQn0K9uRGCibKsNTgrCdf58ukCrMgSsA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2025 19:10:03 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: Jean-Baptiste Maneyrol <Jean-Baptiste.Maneyrol@....com>
Cc: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>, Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>, 
	David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com>, Nuno Sá <nuno.sa@...log.com>, 
	Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>, "linux-iio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>, 
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] iio: imu: inv_icm42600: add WoM support

On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 5:25 PM Jean-Baptiste Maneyrol
<Jean-Baptiste.Maneyrol@....com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 15, 2025 at 5:47 PM Jean-Baptiste Maneyrol via B4 Relay
> > <devnull+jean-baptiste.maneyrol.tdk.com@...nel.org> wrote:

...

> > > +       /* 1000/256mg per LSB converted in m/s² in micro (1000000) */
> >
> > That 1000000 is redundant, just properly spell the units.
>
> I will use um/s²

FWIW, you may even use a Greek MU letter, kernel is UTF-8 compatible :-)
μm/s²

...

> > > +       /* limit value to 8 bits and prevent 0 */
> > > +       return min(255, max(1, value));
> >
> > Reinvention of the clamp() ?
>
> It was a copy-paste of an older driver, at the time clamp was not here.
> I will replace by clamp, it is much more readable.

For the curious, read this https://lwn.net/Articles/983965/.
The min(max()) may have really unexpected side effects :-)

...

> > > +       if (sleep_ms)
> >
> > Do you need this check?
>
> We need this check in the case sleep_ms is 0. It will happen if accel is
> already on. msleep(0) was usually doing a sleep before. I don't know if it
> is still the case.

I'm wondering if it's documented anywhere, do we need to update /
improve a documentation?

> > > +               msleep(sleep_ms);

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko