linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RESEND] x86, intel

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: <20120412175313.GB18049@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Date:	Thu, 12 Apr 2012 18:53:13 +0100
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:	Jonathan Cameron <jic23@....ac.uk>, mingo@...e.hu,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] x86, intel_mid: ADC management

On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 01:30:35PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > needs to be abstracted as well.  Consumers might not care that the gain 
> > just doubled because someone else requested it, but I suspect many of them will.

> At the bottom layer I'd expect a second consumer of the same data to get
> -EBUSY, but you are then going to tell me there are ADCs with one gain
> control for several channels no doubt 8)

There's also some sensible use cases like the multiple system monitoring
subsystems we've got wanting to monitor the same power rail where it's
useful to have multiple consumers sharing the ADC, though with those
ones changing the gain probably doesn't make much sense.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)