linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] iio: pressure: bmp280: drop sensor

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: <CAHp75Ve_C6BXo75xy4+xZ5b1O9-TT5TGGQDgTR_F1s3TFK3p6Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2025 23:57:04 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com>
Cc: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>, Nuno Sá <nuno.sa@...log.com>, 
	Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iio: pressure: bmp280: drop sensor_data array

On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 10:28 PM David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com> wrote:
>
> Drop the sensor_data array from struct bmp280_data and replace it using
> local structs in each interrupt handler.
>
> The sensor_data array in struct bmp280_data is not used to share data
> between functions and isn't used for DMA, so there isn't really a need
> to have it in the struct. Instead, we can use the struct pattern for
> scan data in each interrupt handler. This has the advantage of allowing
> us to see the actual layout of each scan buffer for each different type
> of supported sensor. It also avoid juggling values between local

of the supported

> variables and the array which makes the code a bit simpler by avoiding
> some extra assignments.
>
> We can also drop the BME280_NUM_MAX_CHANNELS macro as it is no longer
> used.

I like this change so much, thanks!
But one comment below.

Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>

...

>         /* Pressure calculations */
> -       memcpy(&data->sensor_data[offset], &data->buf[3], 3);
> -
> -       offset += sizeof(s32);
> +       memcpy(&buffer.comp_press, &data->buf[3], 3);
>
>         /* Temperature calculations */
> -       memcpy(&data->sensor_data[offset], &data->buf[0], 3);
> +       memcpy(&buffer.comp_temp, &data->buf[0], 3);

Shouldn't these memcpy():s be get_unaligned_be24()/get_unaligned_le24()?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko