netdev - Re: [PATCH] net: dsa: mt7530: increase reset hold time

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 15:06:04 +0300
From: Arınç ÜNAL <arinc.unal@...nc9.com>
To: Justin Swartz <justin.swartz@...ingedge.co.za>
Cc: Daniel Golle <daniel@...rotopia.org>, DENG Qingfang <dqfext@...il.com>,
 Sean Wang <sean.wang@...iatek.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
 Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>, Vladimir Oltean
 <olteanv@...il.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
 Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
 Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
 AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: dsa: mt7530: increase reset hold time

On 13.03.2024 14:52, Justin Swartz wrote:
> 
> On 2024-03-13 10:59, Arınç ÜNAL wrote:
>> This ship has sailed anyway. Now the changes the first patch did must be
>> reverted too. I will deal with this from now on, you can stop sending
>> patches regarding this.
> 
> At least if the first patch isn't reverted, the approach used is
> less likely to result in the problem occuring, IMHO.

I disagree that the previous approach is less likely to result in the
problem occurring. If you don't like the delay amount we agreed on, feel
free to express a higher amount.

I also disagree on introducing a solution that is in addition to another
solution, both of which fix the same problem.

> 
> The delay between deliberately switching the LEDs off, instead of
> only waiting on chip reset logic to handle that, and the reset
> assertion could be considered a "reset setup" period to complement
> the original reset hold period.
> 
> Increasing the hold period to what should be 5000 - 5100 usec,
> definitely made the problem go away my testing, but the previous
> approach is (if nothing else) more explicit in its intent.

I don't want any unnecessary complications on the code I'm maintaining. I
already gave a clear intent on the patch log that introduces a simpler and
more efficient approach, it doesn't need to be on the code.

Arınç