linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID:
 <FR3P281MB17578B82AC67F49552E24EB3CE77A@FR3P281MB1757.DEUP281.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2025 12:46:46 +0000
From: Jean-Baptiste Maneyrol <Jean-Baptiste.Maneyrol@....com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.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 v4 1/2] iio: imu: inv_icm42600: add WoM support

>
>________________________________________
>From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>
>Sent: Friday, June 13, 2025 10:29
>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 v4 1/2] iio: imu: inv_icm42600: add WoM support
> 
>This Message Is From an External Sender
>This message came from outside your organization.
> 
>On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 09:34:26AM +0200, Jean-Baptiste Maneyrol via B4 Relay wrote:
>> 
>> Add WoM as accel roc rising x|y|z event.
>
>...
>
>> +	if (sleep_ms)
>> +		msleep(sleep_ms);
>
>I still wonder if we can get rid of the conditional here.
>Would the
>
>	fsleep(sleep_ms * USEC_PER_MSEC)
>
>actually work as expected?
>
>Ditto for other case(s) like this.

fsleep(0) would call udelay(0) which is architecture dependent. It seems like
it may delay for a very little while, but I'm not able to check that.

>
>...
>
>Overall, looking to this patch again, I think it would be better to prepend it
>by replacing *int*_t types by the respective uXX ones. Because in this patch
>we add dozens of new ones which increases an unneeded churn in the future.
>
In my opinion, to respect the rule don't mix *int*_t and uXX types, it is better
to keep *int*_t types. If it need to be changed, we can change afterward the
whole driver types with a replace tool and send it in a separate patch.

Jonathan,
what is your statement on this point?

>-- 
>With Best Regards,
>Andy Shevchenko
>

Thanks,
JB