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 9E0512D0C61; Wed, 2 Jul 2025 14:59:15 +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=1751468357; cv=none; b=XONjlfpHhVEo9mYUow/eb6U5KBshTO9CiemRRYjVYbam5nbhaISyR7AzGIsuveayceUuZ9UCmveGFlx7WpUECAaCz98qPUaKIavE7MzdLp5PKmQl07zIPpawP6uPZsKaIcUUCBRmu6R5JB1/P/vNnQYySljpMeaSz54N1wgI0tY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1751468357; c=relaxed/simple; bh=XFa+RbN1hYeARCxpBewJM5HGG95dllp0td/+8jL6cQI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=gsU581jdwkZWDiZlMcjH6BXTl/q5XoQ+lpPJn7sqxN+h+oe98XlciNCTjGTcqcVr9AZSMCtplPeSjjc90/SME17Q+0Y+R6mDQ4PIysMc1sFFIRrieYHH/4DjOH/W9hdqauMxDEqUhEZPI+478cBP1Xe1h6EVdWu2s/nDnWaeR5I= 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=bU5G0CkO; 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="bU5G0CkO" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1751468356; x=1783004356; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=XFa+RbN1hYeARCxpBewJM5HGG95dllp0td/+8jL6cQI=; b=bU5G0CkOtkAKmDjlb2IsHyrRypZqegm9MKUPYT79nTNc+p0PgHhXCzxN jszLnbkIp8hiAUqBxdJxOuTtATU4zdH6/rEmSsWgaZRjy8rg7U4QLYjZd pQJcfj9Bqg9WOQ5GVefeJi9eWCh4wfkRDe1Lhl31UVsypXH5gfWnqe5GN N1oaUkS0F9m3FUzkWEVPBDCZ2NliHEsgHRorpP9RcrVrU+UL60OADx+nS SRycY6wvQ6hwwNgXndsx856G5HoucsuS+qqOzFpm+ytqSKSTJH22B9AWq sR+vEFzIQHGj3yk5LznMeX0rB2sDNm5BrFJORRGITtYmPQkIs1UOy62ww w==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: +uGABI7ZStqFUn03FnrU3g== X-CSE-MsgGUID: NzPsRIfiRyWM8ZdffKtw1Q== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6800,10657,11482"; a="65116366" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.16,281,1744095600"; d="scan'208";a="65116366" Received: from orviesa003.jf.intel.com ([10.64.159.143]) by fmvoesa104.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 02 Jul 2025 07:59:15 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: L3cqo9yRRX+jnk+l4X0ISw== X-CSE-MsgGUID: XamOdK7qS1CjdsZZxHNgLA== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.16,281,1744095600"; d="scan'208";a="158477248" Received: from smile.fi.intel.com ([10.237.72.52]) by orviesa003.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 02 Jul 2025 07:59:12 -0700 Received: from andy by smile.fi.intel.com with local (Exim 4.98.2) (envelope-from ) id 1uWyvV-0000000BwqV-3Ldk; Wed, 02 Jul 2025 17:59:09 +0300 Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2025 17:59:09 +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: 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 05:53:57PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > 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.,, Reading the static analyser output I think the first hunk is only what we need, but this is still false positive and it's problem of that static analyser. Have you filed a bug there? (My point is that modifying the code for the advantage of false positives of some static analyser is wrong road to go in my opinion.) -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko