linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 2/5] iio: proximity: rfd77402: Use kernel helper for result polling

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: <aXeSNSKqgfVwhRvs@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2026 18:11:33 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>
To: Shrikant <raskar.shree97@...il.com>
Cc: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
	David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com>,
	Nuno Sá <nuno.sa@...log.com>,
	Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>, skhan@...uxfoundation.org,
	david.hunter.linux@...il.com, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/5] iio: proximity: rfd77402: Use kernel helper for
 result polling

On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 08:58:07PM +0530, Shrikant wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 3:14 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 24, 2026 at 10:26:04PM +0530, Shrikant wrote:

...

> > > > > +                              10 * USEC_PER_MSEC,
> > > > > +                              10 * 10 * USEC_PER_MSEC,
> > > >
> > > > This makes sleep shorter by 2. Why?
> > > I have considered the timeout values from the RFD77402 datasheet.
> > > The timeout values mentioned in section 3.1.1 Single Measure are as below:
> > > 1. Every Status Check = 10ms
> > > 2. Whole Flow = 100 ms
> >
> > So, you should do this in a separate change explaining this.
> In that case, I can add a small preparatory patch before the
> “Use kernel helper for result polling” patch to adjust the
> polling interval according to the datasheet.
> 
> This would mean changing the existing polling loop, for example:
> diff --git a/drivers/iio/proximity/rfd77402.c b/drivers/iio/proximity/rfd77402.c
> index 69cc1505b964..3e14660a4bb1 100644
> --- a/drivers/iio/proximity/rfd77402.c
> +++ b/drivers/iio/proximity/rfd77402.c
> @@ -132,7 +132,7 @@ static int rfd77402_measure(struct i2c_client *client)
>                         goto err;
>                 if (ret & RFD77402_ICSR_RESULT)
>                         break;
> -               msleep(20);
> +               msleep(10);
>         }
> 
>         if (tries < 0) {
> 
> However, this change would then be removed in the very next patch
> when the polling loop is replaced by read_poll_timeout().I just want
> to confirm that this temporary change–then–removal is acceptable?

Yes. These two will be quite different semantically.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko