linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 4/4] iio: ABI: document accel and roc event attributes

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: <CAHp75VckFnumUG8GodAwigG10NVd66Tj-2Tkm3kLWQUET0EorQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2025 22:58:17 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
Cc: Gustavo Silva <gustavograzs@...il.com>, lanzano.alex@...il.com, dlechner@...libre.com, 
	nuno.sa@...log.com, andy@...nel.org, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/4] iio: ABI: document accel and roc event attributes

On Sat, Aug 30, 2025 at 8:09 PM Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 18:05:34 +0100
> Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org> wrote:
> > On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 15:49:50 +0300
> > Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:
> > > On Sat, Aug 30, 2025 at 2:58 PM Gustavo Silva <gustavograzs@...il.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Add accelerometer and rate of change event-related sysfs attributes
> > > > exposed by the bmi270 driver.
> > >
> > > Seems to me like the absent attributes that are already in the kernel,
> > > should be added in the separate patch.
> > Agreed that would be ideal.
>
> Actually what did you mean by absent attributes?

Absent in the documentation, but present in the code. That's what this
patch adds mainly, no?

> This is documenting ABI that is part of the general 'scope' of the full
> IIO ABI but which hasn't turned up before in this particular combination
> (or possibly we missed updating docs when it did!)
>
> Whether it is worth separating out any we know are in another driver is
> an open question, but Gustavo hasn't called out any as being like that.
> It's possible that these are all surfacing for the first time in this driver.

Hmm... But if the code handles the attribute which is not documented,
that needs to be fixed.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko