From: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>
To: Jinseob Kim <kimjinseob88@gmail.com>
Cc: "Rob Herring" <robh@kernel.org>,
"Krzysztof Kozlowski" <krzk+dt@kernel.org>,
"Conor Dooley" <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
"David Lechner" <dlechner@baylibre.com>,
"Nuno Sá" <nuno.sa@analog.com>,
"Andy Shevchenko" <andy@kernel.org>,
"Jonathan Corbet" <corbet@lwn.net>,
"Shuah Khan" <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>,
linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v5 3/6] iio: osf: add protocol decoding
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2026 17:43:09 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260622174309.35904c86@jic23-huawei> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260616072242.3942-4-kimjinseob88@gmail.com>
On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 16:22:39 +0900
Jinseob Kim <kimjinseob88@gmail.com> wrote:
> Add helpers for validating and decoding Open Sensor Fusion frames and the
> message payloads used by the initial receive path.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jinseob Kim <kimjinseob88@gmail.com>
A few things inline.
> ---
> drivers/iio/opensensorfusion/osf_protocol.c | 249 ++++++++++++++++++++
> drivers/iio/opensensorfusion/osf_protocol.h | 97 ++++++++
> 2 files changed, 346 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 drivers/iio/opensensorfusion/osf_protocol.c
> create mode 100644 drivers/iio/opensensorfusion/osf_protocol.h
>
> diff --git a/drivers/iio/opensensorfusion/osf_protocol.c b/drivers/iio/opensensorfusion/osf_protocol.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000..5bee545f3
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/iio/opensensorfusion/osf_protocol.c
> +int osf_protocol_decode_frame(const u8 *buf, size_t len,
> + struct osf_frame *frame, size_t *frame_len)
> +{
> + u32 expected_crc;
> + u32 actual_crc;
> + u32 payload_len;
> + size_t total_len;
> + u8 major;
> +
> + if (!buf || !frame || !frame_len)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + if (len < OSF_FRAME_MIN_LEN)
> + return -EMSGSIZE;
> +
> + if (get_unaligned_le32(buf) != OSF_FRAME_MAGIC)
> + return -EPROTO;
> +
> + major = buf[4];
> + if (major != OSF_PROTOCOL_MAJOR)
> + return -EPROTO;
> +
> + if (get_unaligned_le16(buf + 6) != OSF_FRAME_HEADER_LEN)
> + return -EPROTO;
> +
> + payload_len = get_unaligned_le32(buf + 10);
> + if (payload_len > len - OSF_FRAME_MIN_LEN)
> + return -EMSGSIZE;
> +
> + if (get_unaligned_le32(buf + 34))
> + return -EPROTO;
> +
> + total_len = OSF_FRAME_HEADER_LEN + payload_len + OSF_FRAME_CRC_LEN;
> + expected_crc = osf_crc32_ieee(buf, OSF_FRAME_HEADER_LEN + payload_len);
> + actual_crc = get_unaligned_le32(buf + OSF_FRAME_HEADER_LEN + payload_len);
> +
> + if (actual_crc != expected_crc)
> + return -EBADMSG;
> +
> + frame->protocol_minor = buf[5];
> + frame->message_type = get_unaligned_le16(buf + 8);
> + frame->payload_len = payload_len;
> + frame->sequence = get_unaligned_le64(buf + 14);
> + frame->timestamp_us = get_unaligned_le64(buf + 22);
> + frame->flags = get_unaligned_le32(buf + 30);
> + frame->payload = buf + OSF_FRAME_HEADER_LEN;
> + frame->crc = actual_crc;
Same as below wrt to to using designated initializers for these
structure fills
> + *frame_len = total_len;
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +int osf_protocol_decode_sensor_sample(const struct osf_frame *frame,
> + struct osf_sensor_sample *sample)
> +{
> + u16 channel_count;
> + u16 sample_format;
> + u16 sensor_type;
> + size_t expected_len;
> + const u8 *payload;
> +
> + if (!frame || !sample || !frame->payload)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + if (frame->message_type != OSF_MSG_SENSOR_SAMPLE)
> + return -EPROTO;
> +
> + if (frame->payload_len < OSF_SENSOR_SAMPLE_BASE_LEN)
> + return -EMSGSIZE;
> +
> + payload = frame->payload;
> + sensor_type = get_unaligned_le16(payload);
> + channel_count = get_unaligned_le16(payload + 4);
> + sample_format = get_unaligned_le16(payload + 6);
> +
> + if (!osf_sensor_type_valid(sensor_type))
> + return -EPROTO;
> +
> + if (!channel_count)
> + return -EPROTO;
> +
> + if (sample_format != OSF_SAMPLE_FORMAT_S32)
> + return -EPROTO;
> +
> + if (get_unaligned_le32(payload + 12))
> + return -EPROTO;
> +
> + if (channel_count > (SIZE_MAX - OSF_SENSOR_SAMPLE_BASE_LEN) / sizeof(s32))
> + return -EOVERFLOW;
> +
> + expected_len = OSF_SENSOR_SAMPLE_BASE_LEN + channel_count * sizeof(s32);
> + if (frame->payload_len != expected_len)
> + return -EMSGSIZE;
> +
> + sample->sensor_type = sensor_type;
> + sample->sensor_index = get_unaligned_le16(payload + 2);
> + sample->channel_count = channel_count;
> + sample->sample_format = sample_format;
> + sample->scale_nano = get_unaligned_le32(payload + 8);
> + sample->samples = payload + OSF_SENSOR_SAMPLE_BASE_LEN;
See below. Designated initializer would help readability a little here.
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +int osf_protocol_sensor_sample_value(const struct osf_sensor_sample *sample,
> + unsigned int index, s32 *value)
Given channel count is a u16 and we can't be equal or bigger than it, perhaps
use a u16 for index as well.
> +{
> + if (!sample || !sample->samples || !value)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + if (index >= sample->channel_count)
> + return -ERANGE;
> +
> + /* Samples are little-endian two's-complement signed values. */
> + *value = (s32)get_unaligned_le32(sample->samples + index * sizeof(s32));
sizeof(__le32) slightly more appropriate given that is what you are treating it
as.
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +int osf_protocol_decode_device_status(const struct osf_frame *frame,
> + struct osf_device_status *status)
> +{
> + const u8 *payload;
> +
> + if (!frame || !status || !frame->payload)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + if (frame->message_type != OSF_MSG_DEVICE_STATUS)
> + return -EPROTO;
> +
> + if (frame->payload_len != OSF_DEVICE_STATUS_LEN)
> + return -EMSGSIZE;
> +
> + payload = frame->payload;
> + if (get_unaligned_le32(payload + 16))
> + return -EPROTO;
> +
> + status->uptime_s = get_unaligned_le32(payload);
> + status->status_flags = get_unaligned_le32(payload + 4);
> + status->error_flags = get_unaligned_le32(payload + 8);
> + status->dropped_frames = get_unaligned_le32(payload + 12);
Similar to below. I'd use a designated initializer for status as it
is all written in one place.
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +int osf_protocol_decode_capability_entry(const struct osf_capability_report *report,
> + unsigned int index,
> + struct osf_capability_entry *entry)
> +{
> + u16 sample_format;
> + u16 sensor_type;
> + u32 flags;
> + const u8 *payload;
> +
> + if (!report || !report->entries || !entry)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + if (index >= report->capability_count)
Neater to size index to match capability_count. Not that
important though.
> + return -ERANGE;
> +
> + payload = report->entries + index * OSF_CAP_SENSOR_ENTRY_LEN;
> + sensor_type = get_unaligned_le16(payload);
> + sample_format = get_unaligned_le16(payload + 6);
> + flags = get_unaligned_le32(payload + 12);
> +
> + if (!osf_sensor_type_valid(sensor_type))
> + return -EPROTO;
> +
> + if (sample_format != OSF_SAMPLE_FORMAT_S32)
> + return -EPROTO;
> +
> + if (flags & ~OSF_CAPABILITY_FLAGS_MASK)
> + return -EPROTO;
> +
> + if (get_unaligned_le32(payload + 16))
> + return -EPROTO;
> +
> + entry->sensor_type = sensor_type;
> + entry->sensor_index = get_unaligned_le16(payload + 2);
> + entry->channel_count = get_unaligned_le16(payload + 4);
> + entry->sample_format = sample_format;
> + entry->scale_nano = get_unaligned_le32(payload + 8);
> + entry->flags = flags;
neater as designated initializer I think.
*entry = (struct osf_capability_entry) {
.sensor_type = sensor_type,
.sensor_index = get_unaligned_le16(payload + 2),
etc
};
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-06-22 16:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-06-16 7:22 [PATCH RFC v5 0/6] iio: add Open Sensor Fusion IIO driver Jinseob Kim
2026-06-16 7:22 ` [PATCH RFC v5 1/6] dt-bindings: iio: add Open Sensor Fusion device Jinseob Kim
2026-06-16 7:31 ` sashiko-bot
2026-06-16 15:53 ` Conor Dooley
2026-06-16 7:22 ` [PATCH RFC v5 2/6] Documentation: iio: add Open Sensor Fusion driver overview Jinseob Kim
2026-06-22 16:21 ` Jonathan Cameron
2026-06-16 7:22 ` [PATCH RFC v5 3/6] iio: osf: add protocol decoding Jinseob Kim
2026-06-16 11:09 ` Andy Shevchenko
2026-06-22 16:43 ` Jonathan Cameron [this message]
2026-06-16 7:22 ` [PATCH RFC v5 4/6] iio: osf: add stream parser Jinseob Kim
2026-06-16 7:38 ` sashiko-bot
2026-06-16 11:16 ` Andy Shevchenko
2026-06-16 7:22 ` [PATCH RFC v5 5/6] iio: osf: add UART transport Jinseob Kim
2026-06-16 7:37 ` sashiko-bot
2026-06-16 11:27 ` Andy Shevchenko
2026-06-22 16:49 ` Jonathan Cameron
2026-06-16 7:22 ` [PATCH RFC v5 6/6] iio: osf: register IIO devices from capabilities Jinseob Kim
2026-06-16 7:38 ` sashiko-bot
2026-06-16 11:32 ` Andy Shevchenko
2026-06-22 17:07 ` Jonathan Cameron
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20260622174309.35904c86@jic23-huawei \
--to=jic23@kernel.org \
--cc=andy@kernel.org \
--cc=conor+dt@kernel.org \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=dlechner@baylibre.com \
--cc=kimjinseob88@gmail.com \
--cc=krzk+dt@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-iio@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nuno.sa@analog.com \
--cc=robh@kernel.org \
--cc=skhan@linuxfoundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox