linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] iio: adc: ad9467: support write/read offset

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: <4a64c388-f141-4998-96e0-f6840d70f139@vaisala.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2025 09:28:23 +0200
From: Tomas Melin <tomas.melin@...sala.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>
Cc: Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
 Michael Hennerich <Michael.Hennerich@...log.com>,
 Nuno Sa <nuno.sa@...log.com>, Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
 David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com>, Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>,
 Alexandru Ardelean <alexandru.ardelean@...log.com>,
 Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] iio: adc: ad9467: support write/read offset



On 02/12/2025 17:01, Tomas Melin wrote:
> 
> 
> On 02/12/2025 16:11, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 02, 2025 at 12:53:09PM +0000, Tomas Melin wrote:
>>> Support configuring output calibration value. Among the devices
>>> currently supported by this driver, this setting is specific to
>>> ad9434. The offset can be used to calibrate the output against
>>> a known input. The register is called offset, but the procedure
>>> is best mapped internally with calibbias operation.
>>
>> ...
>>
>>>  static const struct iio_chan_spec ad9434_channels[] = {
>>> -	AD9467_CHAN(0, BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_SCALE), 0, 12, 's'),
>>> +	{
>>> +		.type = IIO_VOLTAGE,
>>> +		.indexed = 1,
>>> +		.channel = 0,
>>> +		.info_mask_shared_by_type =
>>> +		BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_SCALE) |
>>> +		BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_SAMP_FREQ) |
>>> +		BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_CALIBBIAS),
>>
>> Wrong indentation.
> 
> Can you please provide example of your preferred indentation for this
> particular case? This is used in several places around the code and
> seemed like one of the more readable.

Would this be the preferred indentation?

{
	.type = IIO_VOLTAGE,
	.indexed = 1,
	.channel = 0,
	.info_mask_shared_by_type = BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_SCALE) |
				    BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_SAMP_FREQ) |
				    BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_CALIBBIAS),
	.info_mask_shared_by_type_available =
		BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_SCALE) |
		BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_CALIBBIAS),
	.scan_index = 0,
	.scan_type = {
		.sign = 's',
		.realbits = 12,
		.storagebits = 16,
	},
},


BR,
Tomas

> 
>>
>>> +		.info_mask_shared_by_type_available =
>>> +		BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_SCALE) |
>>> +		BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_CALIBBIAS),
>>
>> Ditto.
>>
>>> +		.scan_index = 0,
>>> +		.scan_type = {
>>> +			.sign = 's',
>>> +			.realbits = 12,
>>> +			.storagebits = 16,
>>> +		},
>>> +	},
>>>  };
>>
>> I'm not sure about macro-less approach here, I think that we want more
>> consistency and hence before doing this change probably we want to clean up
>> the existing macro, then split it to two, and add another one here based on
>> the low-level, which was split in the previous clean up.
> 
> As mentioned, this is only needed for a single channel, and since it is
> different than the other, it needs to be separated. Do You think we
> actually need another macro for this?
> 
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> +	return ad9467_spi_write(st, AN877_ADC_REG_TRANSFER,
>>> +				AN877_ADC_TRANSFER_SYNC);
>>
>> I would make it one line, despite on being 85 characters long.
>> But it's up to you and maintainers.
> I would like to not fight against checkpatch here.
> 
>>
> 
>