linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] iio: adc: Add the NXP SAR ADC support for the s32g2/3 platforms

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: <6bf6a282ee8a4e55ebba21d89ec6dcf3fa499188.camel@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2025 16:10:38 +0100
From: Nuno Sá <noname.nuno@...il.com>
To: Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@...wei.com>, David Lechner
	 <dlechner@...libre.com>
Cc: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>, Jonathan Cameron	
 <jic23@...nel.org>, nuno.sa@...log.com, andy@...nel.org, robh@...nel.org, 
	conor+dt@...nel.org, krzk+dt@...nel.org, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
 s32@....com, 	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 chester62515@...il.com, 	mbrugger@...e.com, ghennadi.procopciuc@....nxp.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] iio: adc: Add the NXP SAR ADC support for the
 s32g2/3 platforms

On Fri, 2025-09-12 at 15:17 +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2025 08:26:06 -0500
> David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com> wrote:
> 
> > On 9/11/25 7:55 AM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> > > 
> > > Hi Jonathan,
> > > 
> > > thanks for the review
> > > 
> > > On 10/09/2025 19:32, Jonathan Cameron wrote:  
> > > > On Wed, 10 Sep 2025 17:57:56 +0200
> > > > Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org> wrote:  
> > > 
> > > [ ... ]
> > >   
> > 
> > ...
> > 
> > >   
> > > > > +    indio_dev->name = dev_name(dev);  
> > > > 
> > > > This should be the 'part number'.  That is a little ill defined
> > > > for a SoC integrated ADC, but generally not what we get from dev_name()
> > > > on the platform_device.  
> > > 
> > > Sorry, I don't get the comment. If I refer to the different drivers there
> > > is not consistency with the iio_dev->name.  
> > 
> > dev_name() will be something like adc@...45678 from the devicetree,
> > so not the "part number".
> > 
> > > 
> > > rtq6056.c:      indio_dev->name = "rtq6056";  
> > 
> > This style is preferred if there is only one supported part.
> > 
> > > rzg2l_adc.c:    indio_dev->name = DRIVER_NAME;  
> > 
> > We try to avoid using a macro for the driver name like this.
> > 
> > > sc27xx_adc.c:   indio_dev->name = dev_name(dev);  
> > 
> > Looks like we missed catching this one in review.
> 
> There are a bunch of historical drivers (and maybe some more recent
> ones that snuck in). The risk of changing that ABI seemed too high to fix them
> up.  I guess this happens often enough I should add a comment to the ones
> that still do this about it being wrong but left alone as the ABI was in use.
> 

Yeah, we (at ADI) also had the highly questionable practise of using the OF node
name until we the label property got in. So I would not be surprised if some of
those are still around.

- Nuno Sá 

> 
> > 
> > > mt6359-auxadc.c:  indio_dev->name = adc_dev->chip_info->model_name;  
> > 
> > This is preferred if there is more than one part supported in the driver.
> > 
> > > mcp3911.c:      indio_dev->name = spi_get_device_id(spi)->name;  
> > 
> > This is fine too in cases where there isn't chip_info.
> > 
> > > 
> > > Are you suggesting to use the compatible part number ?
> > > 
> > >     indio->name = "s32g2-sar-adc";
> > >   
> > 
> > That works.
> > 
> > 
> >