linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mmc: use usleep_range() in mmc

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1201131633580.31704@kernel.research.nokia.com>
Date:	Fri, 13 Jan 2012 16:52:16 +0200 (EET)
From:	Aaro Koskinen <aaro.koskinen@...ia.com>
To:	Dmitry Antipov <dmitry.antipov@...aro.org>
cc:	linaro-dev@...ts.linaro.org, linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmc: use usleep_range() in mmc_delay()

Hi,

On Fri, 13 Jan 2012, Dmitry Antipov wrote:
> On 01/13/2012 05:22 PM, Aaro Koskinen wrote:
>
>> Anyway, I think the change is good. On systems with multiple MMC devices
>> the boot/probe can spend 100-200 ms alone just doing busylooping delays. I
>> think e.g. in mmc_rescan() the code uses frequently mmc_delay(10).
>
> I'm worrying about this:
>
> mmc_delay(DIV_ROUND_UP(card->ext_csd.sa_timeout, 10000))
>
> since I have no ideas about typical values for this timeout.
> If it may be too small (<=10 us), using usleep_range() makes no sense.

Hmm, but the code above is rounding it up to at least 1 ms?

A.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/