linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] arm/tegra: add timeout to PCIe PLL lock detection loop

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]

Message-ID: <CAOesGMi0aqCjLsJ5wWXwFVQL2T8wtUuE14rFZ9h7NKHXcWAoqQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 12 Mar 2012 12:56:10 -0700
From:	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>
To:	Dmitry Artamonow <mad_soft@...ox.ru>
Cc:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
	linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org, Andi <andi.shyti@...il.com>,
	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...onic-design.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Colin Cross <ccross@...roid.com>,
	Mike Rapoport <mike@...pulab.co.il>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] arm/tegra: add timeout to PCIe PLL lock detection loop

On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Dmitry Artamonow <mad_soft@...ox.ru> wrote:
> On 12:09 Mon 12 Mar     , Stephen Warren wrote:
>> Thierry pointed out that one of NVIDIA's downstream kernels uses a
>> timeout of 300 here, rather than 2000 above. Do you see a specific need
>> for this timeout for be 2000 rather than 300? It might be nice to be
>> consistent.
> No, there's no specific need for it to be 2000 - it may as well be 300.
> I just wanted to stay on the safe side, but I think 300 should be still
> more than enough time for PLL to lock.
>
>>
>> Olof, I notice you've already applied V1 of this, which has the return
>> statement issue. Can you replace it with this, or should Dmitry send an
>> incremental patch?
>
> Yes, V1 breaks more things than it fixes, so it would be nice if
> it can be replaced with fixed version (I hope it's not too late yet).
> BTW, regarding timeout discussion above - should I resend patch with
> adjusted timeout, or can you change it while applying? (of course,
> if we settle on incremental patch, I'll roll this change in)

Please send an incremental patch which also solves the above question. :)


-Olof
--
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/