linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 07/14] iio: accel: bma220: reset registers during init stage

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <aMLUDkKhF_jhios0@sunspire>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2025 16:52:14 +0300
From: Petre Rodan <petre.rodan@...dimension.ro>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
Cc: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
	David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com>,
	Nuno S?? <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>,
	Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>,
	linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 07/14] iio: accel: bma220: reset registers during init
 stage


Hello.

On Thu, Sep 11, 2025 at 03:07:05PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 11/09/2025 14:36, Petre Rodan wrote:
> > 
> > Hi Krzysztof,
> > 
> > On Thu, Sep 11, 2025 at 09:35:52AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> On 10/09/2025 09:57, Petre Rodan wrote:
> >>> Bring all configuration registers to default values during device probe().
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Petre Rodan <petre.rodan@...dimension.ro>
> >>> ---
> >>>  drivers/iio/accel/bma220_core.c | 71 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
> >>>  1 file changed, 49 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/iio/accel/bma220_core.c b/drivers/iio/accel/bma220_core.c
> >>> index b6f1374a9cca52966c1055113710061a7284cf5a..322df516c90a7c645eeca579cae9803eb31caad1 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/iio/accel/bma220_core.c
> >>> -static int bma220_init(struct spi_device *spi)
> >>> +static int bma220_reset(struct spi_device *spi, bool up)
> >>>  {
> >>> -	int ret;
> >>> -	static const char * const regulator_names[] = { "vddd", "vddio", "vdda" };
> >>> +	int i, ret;
> >>>  
> >>> -	ret = devm_regulator_bulk_get_enable(&spi->dev,
> >>
> >>
> >> You just added this code in patch 6. Don't add code which immediately
> >> you remove. I understand you re-add this later, so basically it is a
> >> move, but such patch diff is still confusing.
> > 
> > sorry, but this is an artefact of 'git diff' I don't think I have no control of.
> 
> 
> Don't think so. Before bma220_init() was above bma220_power(). After
> your patch bma220_init() is BELOW bma220_power(), so that's a move.

you are correct, these two functions did change places due to the fact that
_init() started using _power(). I preffered to do the move instead
of adding a forward declaration and leaving _power() between _init() and _deinit().
the code was optimized for how it will look at the end of all this patching.

I thought you ment the code that was added the previous patch was not removed per
se from _init(), which was not the case.

best regards,
peter

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)