Re: [PATCH] iio: adc: Revoke valid channel for error path

Nuno Sá
2025-04-18T09:46:04Z

On Thu, 2025-04-17 at 13:08 -0400, Gabriel Shahrouzi wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 10:02 AM Nuno Sá <noname.nuno@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 2025-04-17 at 08:53 -0400, Gabriel Shahrouzi wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 6:06 AM Nuno Sá <noname.nuno@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 2025-04-15 at 14:20 -0400, Gabriel Shahrouzi wrote:
> > > > > According to the datasheet on page 9 under the channel selection table,
> > > > > all devices (AD7816/7/8) are able to use the channel marked as 7. This
> > > > > channel is used for diagnostic purposes by routing the internal 1.23V
> > > > > bandgap source through the MUX to the input of the ADC.
> > > > >
> > > > > Replace checking for string equality with checking for the same chip ID
> > > > > to reduce time complexity.
> > > > >
> > > > > Group invalid channels for all devices together because they are
> > > > > processed the same way.
> > > > >
> > > > > Fixes: 7924425db04a ("staging: iio: adc: new driver for AD7816 devices")
> > > > > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Gabriel Shahrouzi <gshahrouzi@gmail.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  drivers/staging/iio/adc/ad7816.c | 15 +++++----------
> > > > >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/iio/adc/ad7816.c
> > > > > b/drivers/staging/iio/adc/ad7816.c
> > > > > index 6c14d7bcdd675..d880fe0257697 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/staging/iio/adc/ad7816.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/staging/iio/adc/ad7816.c
> > > > > @@ -186,17 +186,12 @@ static ssize_t ad7816_store_channel(struct device
> > > > > *dev,
> > > > >       if (ret)
> > > > >               return ret;
> > > > >
> > > > > -     if (data > AD7816_CS_MAX && data != AD7816_CS_MASK) {
> > > > > -             dev_err(&chip->spi_dev->dev, "Invalid channel id %lu for
> > > > > %s.\n",
> > > > > -                     data, indio_dev->name);
> > > > > -             return -EINVAL;
> > > > > -     } else if (strcmp(indio_dev->name, "ad7818") == 0 && data > 1) {
> > > > > -             dev_err(&chip->spi_dev->dev,
> > > > > -                     "Invalid channel id %lu for ad7818.\n", data);
> > > > > -             return -EINVAL;
> > > > > -     } else if (strcmp(indio_dev->name, "ad7816") == 0 && data > 0) {
> > > > > +     if (data != AD7816_CS_MASK &&
> > > > > +         (data > AD7816_CS_MAX ||
> > > > > +         (chip->id == ID_AD7818 && data > 1) ||
> > > > > +         (chip->id == ID_AD7816 && data > 0))) {
> > > > >               dev_err(&chip->spi_dev->dev,
> > > > > -                     "Invalid channel id %lu for ad7816.\n", data);
> > > > > +                     "Invalid channel id %lu for %s.\n", data, indio_dev-
> > > > > > name);
> > > > >               return -EINVAL;
> > > > >       }
> > > >
> > > > Hmm, maybe I'm missing something but the code just looks the same as before
> > > > (from a functionality point of view)? I'm really not seeing any fix...
> > > I might have to change it for readability. From my understanding, if
> > > channel 7 is selected (AD7816_CS_MASK), it never enters the error path
> > > whereas in the old code, if the chip were either ad7816 or ad7818, it would
> > > end up returning an error because it skips all channels above either 0
> > > or 1.
> >
> > Ahh, right!
> >
> > One good refactor is to add a chip_info struct (renaming the existing one) with
> > let's say a name and max_channels. Then, the condition could be reduced to:
> >
> > if (data > st->chip->max_channel && data != AD7816_CS_MASK {
> >         dev_err(...);
> >         return -EINVAL;
> > }
> Makes sense. I sent a V2 with the updates. Also included enum
> ad7816_type as a member for chip_info but not sure if it is necessary.
> Renamed the existing one to ad7816_state.
> >
> > Being this in staging, I guess we don't care much about having the fix as the
> > first patch to make it easier to backport.
> In other words, combining the refactoring and fix into one patch is
> fine but normally they would be split?

Yes, in theory we want to have the fixes first before any refactor because we might
want to backport the fix and we do not want to backport more code than needed. Not
totally sure but being this on staging we might not care that much about this.

- Nuno Sá
>
> >
> > - Nuno Sá
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Having said the above, not sure if grouping helps with readability. But I do
> > > > agree with moving from string comparison to use chip->id. And we also have
> > > > redundants 'else'
> > > >
> > > > - Nuno Sá
> > > >