From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [192.198.163.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 411FF3093D8; Wed, 2 Jul 2025 14:54:03 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.10 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1751468045; cv=none; b=knyImZBWW7nZwLvjio50pmjnW8FTsXbVNnAp2jFM8+7utrNe5fSV84wKbStbN6a8l9xhsYf5QZ1qydK2AbxGWQ20NrT9EayVyp+uCX3lucEcqBEFLjmVZK6g0Z3B4RK82tT7LcqXKwOD/i9NpiRbpJcEehlVkPwWXMW99BTUTyc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1751468045; c=relaxed/simple; bh=pCEg0EdOzKP+ZUExkv71c25NkuI2si5Osz6a0iRg3jE=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=gv6pBBIAZILPyjczWXxD9HXFvhp9ZMIlQ5RX1zQGyjYPzXDrMw2YdMg5k8A3Qj8P0qwsarzAT86ys0aEllYQM+HYmYuL+Yp2o7v4mPVM+EAtLmaix/nhtOUZ0pbXOyWrKD065mxWYMnBWFTpfVgkr7zz8wtPxqXKyuYx+3rt+JA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=D+ReiwSO; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.10 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="D+ReiwSO" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1751468044; x=1783004044; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=pCEg0EdOzKP+ZUExkv71c25NkuI2si5Osz6a0iRg3jE=; b=D+ReiwSO0WdRpR2lhHOZQ40cxKkBxCU1gGwasfbywm0h7kA8bssItJ5o wjm8avOf0x15+YoqeUFWWW2IZyIWrqlzytMICWwc2OUXuNFNgkpbbONjF w2PsOh3+7VYBzgJ2PlG8pHzkauzjQcLqcXwK88Ziog6bU8HustZXGjqXT ygh0rnUjm29TFvLvE1Q8Cu8IdwKFdNEL0Gx+GGdzabBBglMCA2VXlv0Rf stJThK4HYpllqjVONpQWB1BtTuaHANgOmOQBD+xgQG80NX5gl10ljL0tI MbAlUvKZByuaVdmcMLsTVXRFKCtozlNMEL9PEdRt0qkBbmCjY8u6QRjV4 w==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: iyW8BOO0Tz2fXLdnmfa/DA== X-CSE-MsgGUID: l1OQY7bmTYiTr28m1cs5lg== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6800,10657,11482"; a="65115576" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.16,281,1744095600"; d="scan'208";a="65115576" Received: from orviesa002.jf.intel.com ([10.64.159.142]) by fmvoesa104.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 02 Jul 2025 07:54:04 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: cUXzadvVQxKM5FdeQxjB1A== X-CSE-MsgGUID: 6gkIpMEbSmmRCp1lMg8YNQ== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.16,281,1744095600"; d="scan'208";a="185126577" Received: from smile.fi.intel.com ([10.237.72.52]) by orviesa002.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 02 Jul 2025 07:54:01 -0700 Received: from andy by smile.fi.intel.com with local (Exim 4.98.2) (envelope-from ) id 1uWyqT-0000000Bwkw-3mLM; Wed, 02 Jul 2025 17:53:57 +0300 Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2025 17:53:57 +0300 From: Andy Shevchenko To: David Lechner Cc: Lars-Peter Clausen , Michael Hennerich , Jonathan Cameron , Nuno =?iso-8859-1?Q?S=E1?= , Robert Budai , Andy Shevchenko , linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] iio: imu: adis16550: rework clock range test Message-ID: References: <20250702-iio-imu-adis16550-rework-clock-range-test-v1-1-b45f3a3b0dc1@baylibre.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-iio@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20250702-iio-imu-adis16550-rework-clock-range-test-v1-1-b45f3a3b0dc1@baylibre.com> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - c/o Alberga Business Park, 6 krs, Bertel Jungin Aukio 5, 02600 Espoo On Wed, Jul 02, 2025 at 09:27:45AM -0500, David Lechner wrote: > Rework the clock rate range test to test if sync_mode_data != NULL > instead of testing if the for loop index variable. This makes it easier > for static analyzers to see that we aren't using an uninitialized > sync_mode_data [1]. But at the same time it makes it not to be the usual pattern.,, -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko