linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Revert "drivers/misc/ti-st: remove gpio handling"

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, 23 Jan 2013 10:05:57 +0100
From:	Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@...com>
To:	Luciano Coelho <coelho@...com>
CC:	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>, <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	<balbi@...com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "drivers/misc/ti-st: remove gpio handling"

On 01/23/2013 10:04 AM, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
> On 01/22/2013 10:31 PM, Luciano Coelho wrote:
>> I thought about checking exactly what we need as delays and whether we
>> really need to do all that toggling.  At least in some boards, the
>> toggles are not needed, but I don't know for sure whether it works in
>> all different variations of the chip, so I kept them to be safe.  Also,
>> I tried to deviate as little as possible from a plain revert, since I'd
>> like to get this into stable as well.
> 
> I can not find the documentation for the WiLink, but I would guess that it
> needs some delay between high->low(off)->(wait)->high(on)->(power-on-time)->up

But mdelay() looks a bit overkill IMHO.

-- 
Péter
--
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/