linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] staging: iio: ad9832: remove dds.h dependency

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: <hjspdsgz6ey7iaczw3qxn5qwlmpv7pnhxxmrzmfigygc33at2r@3gq2xps7idza>
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2026 02:25:23 -0300
From: Tomas Borquez <tomasborquez13@...il.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>, 
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>, 
	Michael Hennerich <Michael.Hennerich@...log.com>, David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com>, 
	Nuno Sá <nuno.sa@...log.com>, Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] staging: iio: ad9832: remove dds.h dependency

On Wed, Dec 31, 2025 at 12:46:28AM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 30, 2025 at 10:35 PM Tomas Borquez <tomasborquez13@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > Remove dependency on dds.h by converting custom macros to standard IIO
> > attribute declarations.
> 
> 
> > +static IIO_DEVICE_ATTR(out_altvoltage0_frequency0, 0200, NULL, ad9832_write, AD9832_FREQ0HM);
> > +static IIO_DEVICE_ATTR(out_altvoltage0_frequency1, 0200, NULL, ad9832_write, AD9832_FREQ1HM);
> 
> Any particular point in not using _WO() / _RO() variants of the
> IIO_DEVICE_ATTR_*() macros?
I was looking into this and saw that the definition for both _WO() and _RO() only takes _name and _addr:

#define IIO_DEVICE_ATTR_WO(_name, _addr) \
	struct iio_dev_attr iio_dev_attr_##_name = IIO_ATTR_WO(_name, _addr)

So if we use it for frequency0 for example, it assumes the store function
since we don't pass it:

static IIO_DEVICE_ATTR_WO(out_altvoltage0_frequency0, AD9832_FREQ0HM);

// Expands to
struct iio_dev_attr iio_dev_attr_out_altvoltage0_frequency0 = {
    .dev_attr = {
        . attr = {
          ...
          .store = out_altvoltage0_frequency0_store,
        }
    }
}

Meaning we would have to create a store for each one instead of using
just one write function

> -- 
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko