linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] iio: adc: ad9467: make iio backend optional

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: <df70028b-49a5-4004-a534-e1451d581dda@vaisala.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2025 13:25:17 +0200
From: Tomas Melin <tomas.melin@...sala.com>
To: Nuno Sá <noname.nuno@...il.com>,
 Michael Hennerich <Michael.Hennerich@...log.com>,
 Nuno Sa <nuno.sa@...log.com>, Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
 Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>, David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com>,
 Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>
Cc: "linux-iio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>,
 "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] iio: adc: ad9467: make iio backend optional

Hi,

On 18/12/2025 15:41, Nuno Sá wrote:
> On Wed, 2025-12-17 at 13:44 +0200, Tomas Melin wrote:
>> [resend, I think there was some problem with my first reply]
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 17/12/2025 11:26, Nuno Sá wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2025-12-16 at 15:39 +0000, Tomas Melin wrote:
> 
> The above is indeed cumbersome. I guess dummy is not what we would need but something
> like a fixed-backend that would implement all the ops in a dummy way. But that does not
> make much sense and doesn't really scale.
> 
> I think my main complain is also that then we should add a devm_backend_get_optional() to make
> the intent clear but unfortunately this driver is not the best candidate for that.
> 
> Anyways, I still don't love the idea of just ignoring it (given that some HW is indeed present)
> but yeah. Not going to nack it either.

Good that you still see the optional backend as feasible. I will tune
the implementation in next version according to discussion in our other
thread and other possible feeback that comes up. I'm confident we can
find a solution that will work out nicely.

Thanks,
Tomas


> 
> - Nuno Sá
>