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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <aS_9CB9sQc2s1LMI@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2025 11:04:08 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>
To: Tomas Melin <tomas.melin@...sala.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 Wed, Dec 03, 2025 at 09:28:23AM +0200, Tomas Melin wrote:
> 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:

...

> >>>  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?

Almost LGTM, thanks.

> {
> 	.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),

	.info_mask_shared_by_type_available = BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_SCALE) |
					      BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_CALIBBIAS),

It's still less than 80.

_OR_

rake the style consistent with the second one

	.info_mask_shared_by_type =
		BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_SCALE) |
		BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_SAMP_FREQ) |
		BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_CALIBBIAS),

But I dunno which one is preferred. These two are fine with me.

> 	.scan_index = 0,
> 	.scan_type = {
> 		.sign = 's',
> 		.realbits = 12,
> 		.storagebits = 16,
> 	},
> },

> >>> +		.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,
> >>> +		},
> >>> +	},
> >>>  };

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko