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

Message-ID: <CANZih_SsnjGq+DYsbPE54OV=E6W4bkUH3a+29LnW+hYMF+Bobg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2025 23:36:24 -0300
From: Andrew Ijano <andrew.ijano@...il.com>
To: Nuno Sá <noname.nuno@...il.com>
Cc: 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 Sat, Jun 14, 2025 at 4:33 PM Andrew Ijano <andrew.ijano@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 4:29 AM Nuno Sá <noname.nuno@...il.com> wrote:
...
> >
> > Unless I'm missing something, the above seems unrelated to the rest of the patch.
> >
> Oh, I can see why that might feel unrelated. Actually, this was
> related to the first version of the patch which was focused on
> removing the duplicated behavior of sca3000_read_data() and
> sca3000_read_data_short(), unifying it in only one function. Also,
> with Andy's suggestions we cleaned up the function as you're seeing
> here. However, we later replaced all usages of
> sca3000_read_data_short() by spi helpers, leaving just one place
> calling sca3000_read_data(), so this change isn't as necessary as
> before.
>
> Do you think it's still a valid cleanup for this patch or would you
> prefer moving it to a separated one?

Looking back to this, I think we really could benefit from having two
separate patches to handle these different changes.
I'll try to make a new version that addresses all the comments for the
current patchset.

Thanks,
Andrew