From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [192.198.163.19]) (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 09DC524A069; Tue, 28 Apr 2026 15:50:00 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.19 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1777391402; cv=none; b=AmCJkF6XcaATliv27D0PkK+Dq9dCAjegmNBLociOjciOCapiNlnRPyDmyK/veUscgqJL+3+1AH3AkqaRFqDqHOseiGpNpESZ6bG3GipaAwyAWI+E5b8fkiiUJ6UySkbC/UkDdeBGaic6gzQhpiVBc0g+3G8BdvItoYbDOsbBQMg= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1777391402; c=relaxed/simple; bh=56U6/oK1L0sc5qPl5N8aOsF6RV27YNyk67ZjnV9e1Es=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=aell1bvKPCBY7pxsYhY9np5LR6qSvTLReMsYQQMsgbRCvC/nRUWXAeEizegd2GiHR6n6R7kxlR2jUc079fG8V3MPYBUfL4wSaAgn+vKJHzn1AItdU/U6ksGh/MBYZud2QInpT6dqyBJh/+eKHsegcNbot2j9H73P4e8MgXZA0bs= 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=oK0iAS7c; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.19 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="oK0iAS7c" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1777391401; x=1808927401; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=56U6/oK1L0sc5qPl5N8aOsF6RV27YNyk67ZjnV9e1Es=; b=oK0iAS7ctnc2/Mg2Yb/Kk5IqZjkdWLj3s6v86Q2gsuB3AlL23GWIWBef hYQYj6HdpkCZ7jrelTHO6K4wDPbItA39yAFyuapHvrPsHAllPZOzF4KXI GfJjRgXwtH6orSCtqr8u4bFjjzTerJOZkHq814ulzXtY6ErCU9e13Xw0k 1piXV4BUug+jgEDDKbi3FcTKk6T9kVgpXmf+mfumOX1Kcy/75hkzxr8jZ cFWO1hBe/Qe7HjiI4sPvlNI0POqtiFLJkZeA3h3lPG9gO6L98IfUkYNSN XMg/rKBp8SdCYQmMdqYMMDHhmUHjdSQOOL/RQibZBi2oHYrVidPslgbJk g==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: BpkefvoUR6+GR6JaBUGSAw== X-CSE-MsgGUID: qlThgGlISnOt/+cUvR0FVw== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6800,10657,11770"; a="77334970" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.23,204,1770624000"; d="scan'208";a="77334970" Received: from orviesa010.jf.intel.com ([10.64.159.150]) by fmvoesa113.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 28 Apr 2026 08:50:00 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: +oOB/lAXSaawGpMYgVqcTw== X-CSE-MsgGUID: S063X2enTe+1pz3+FaSxjA== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.23,204,1770624000"; d="scan'208";a="233124488" Received: from kniemiec-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.245.244.213]) by orviesa010-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 28 Apr 2026 08:49:58 -0700 Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2026 18:49:56 +0300 From: Andy Shevchenko To: Salah Triki Cc: Jonathan Cameron , David Lechner , Nuno =?iso-8859-1?Q?S=E1?= , Andy Shevchenko , linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] iio: temperature: tsys01: fix broken PROM checksum validation Message-ID: References: <20260428152239.66213-1-salah.triki@gmail.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: <20260428152239.66213-1-salah.triki@gmail.com> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - c/o Alberga Business Park, 6 krs, Bertel Jungin Aukio 5, 02600 Espoo On Tue, Apr 28, 2026 at 04:22:39PM +0100, Salah Triki wrote: > The CRC check function was incorrectly using only the first word of the > PROM (n_prom[0]) instead of iterating through all words. This caused > the driver to fail probing on most devices due to incorrect checksum > calculation. > > - Fix loop to use the correct index n_prom[cnt]. > - Ensure all bytes are summed as per the datasheet specification. ... > u8 sum = 0; > > for (cnt = 0; cnt < TSYS01_PROM_WORDS_NB; cnt++) > - sum += ((n_prom[0] >> 8) + (n_prom[0] & 0xFF)); > + sum += ((n_prom[cnt] >> 8) + (n_prom[cnt] & 0xFF)); > > return (sum == 0); This change makes more questions than answers. How had it been tested, if tested at all? (This question is to before and to after, the commit message is also unclear about what datasheet says or the real field testing gives.) -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko