linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 2/3] iio: accel: sca3000: replace usages of internal read data helpers by spi helpers

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: <CAHp75VfXw++C859kq58QOEcC5c4z1YdF0yBH1v4vJYujUPT75A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2025 00:50:00 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: Andrew Ijano <andrew.ijano@...il.com>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>, jic23@...nel.org, 
	andrew.lopes@...mni.usp.br, gustavobastos@....br, dlechner@...libre.com, 
	nuno.sa@...log.com, andy@...nel.org, jstephan@...libre.com, 
	linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/3] iio: accel: sca3000: replace usages of internal
 read data helpers by spi helpers

On Sun, Jun 15, 2025 at 12:06 AM Andrew Ijano <andrew.ijano@...il.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 10:22 AM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com> wrote:

...

> > Moreover, the function  should be switched to sysfs_emit_at() if this is part
> > of ABI.
>
> Great! I didn't know that.
>
> In this case, sca3000_read_av_freq() is described as a "sysfs function
> to get available frequencies", so I guess it's the case, right?
> Is your suggestion to replace cases of sprintf() by sysfs_emit_at()
> then? If so, I could do that in a following patch, it seems that
> sca3000_show_available_3db_freqs() is also using sprintf().

Yes. This is written in the Documentation.

...

> > >               }, {
> > >                       .len = len,
> > > -                     .rx_buf = rx,
> > > +                     .rx_buf = st->rx,
> > >               }
> > >       };
> >
> > > -
> >
> > Stray change. Doesn't checkpatch complain on this?
>
> I don't recall getting any warning from checkpatch but I can check
> again for this next version.

The problem here is the absence of a blank line between the definition
block (where variables are declared/defined) and the first line of the
actual code.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko