linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 4/5] iio: mcp9600: Recognize chip id for mcp9601

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: <7C976B5E-781D-472B-B2C8-3AD22550E036@watter.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2025 12:06:51 -0400
From: Ben Collins <bcollins@...ter.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
 David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com>,
 Nuno Sá <nuno.sa@...log.com>,
 Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>,
 Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
 Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
 Andrew Hepp <andrew.hepp@...pp.dev>,
 linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 4/5] iio: mcp9600: Recognize chip id for mcp9601


> On Aug 22, 2025, at 11:57 AM, Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Aug 22, 2025 at 4:24 PM Ben Collins <bcollins@...ter.com> wrote:
>> 
>> The current driver works with mcp9601, but emits a warning because it
>> does not recognize the chip id.
>> 
>> MCP9601 is a superset of MCP9600. The drivers works without changes
>> on this chipset.
>> 
>> However, the 9601 chip supports open/closed-circuit detection if wired
>> properly, so we'll need to be able to differentiate between them.
>> 
>> Moved "struct mcp9600_data" up in the file since a later patch will
>> need it and chip_info before the declarations.
> 
> ...
> 
>> +struct mcp9600_data {
>> +       struct i2c_client *client;
>> +};
>> +
> 
>> -struct mcp9600_data {
>> -       struct i2c_client *client;
>> -};
>> -
> 
> Seems we discussed this. And my suggestion was to defer the change to
> when it will be needed.

And my response was that it’s needed in 5/5 where I add the mcp9600_config()
function. That function will need to be before mcp9600_channels[] in the
IIR patch series.

So either I move mcp9600_data now, or I leave it and put mcp9600_config()
below it, and then in the IIR series I’ll have to move both up.

Didn’t seem to make sense to move 30 lines of code later when I can move
3 lines now.

Regards,
  Ben