linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 06/12] iio: accel: adxl313: prepare interrupt handling

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAFXKEHYe_LBV=95Rm75UXF97oUU5CTYzDdwXJZ=cr+4fGOf80g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2025 21:32:18 +0200
From: Lothar Rubusch <l.rubusch@...il.com>
To: andy@...nel.org, jic23@...nel.org, dlechner@...libre.com, 
	nuno.sa@...log.com, corbet@....net, lucas.p.stankus@...il.com, 
	lars@...afoo.de, Michael.Hennerich@...log.com
Cc: linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Lothar Rubusch <l.rubusch@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 06/12] iio: accel: adxl313: prepare interrupt handling

Hi Andy, I forgot to put my mail addresses as well. I copied your answer
now from the mailing list archive. Hence, sorry for the bad formatting
of this mail.

One question / remark down below.

> On Sun, May 18, 2025 at 11:13:15AM +0000, Lothar Rubusch wrote:
> > Evaluate the devicetree property for an optional interrupt line, and
> > configure the interrupt mapping accordingly. When no interrupt line
> > is defined in the devicetree, keep the FIFO in bypass mode as before.
>
> ...
>
> > +        ret = regmap_write(data->regmap, ADXL313_REG_INT_MAP, regval);
>
> Don't you want to use regmap_assign_bits() or something like this to have
> the above ternary be included?
>

Thank you so much. I guess this is a function I was looking for quite
a while and I
know several places where to use it.

Anyway, I saw, my hardware test setup still runs on an older kernel
w/o regmap_assign_bits().
So, I kindly liked to ask if you have any objections against leaving
regmap_write() for now? Actually I'd prefer first to see the
activity/inactivity stuff in, in case this will need some more
modifications and I need to verify them on hardware. I think, leaving
regmap_write() here would make that easier for this patch set. Please,
let me know?

I'm about to send a v2, for the follow up discussion.
Best,
L

> > +        if (ret)
> > +            return ret;
>