linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 2/2] i2c: designware-pci: set ideal HCNT, LCNT and SDA hold time value

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:	Mon, 10 Mar 2014 11:34:49 +0000
From:	"Chew, Chiau Ee" <chiau.ee.chew@...el.com>
To:	Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
CC:	Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
	"linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org" <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/2] i2c: designware-pci: set ideal HCNT, LCNT and SDA
 hold time value



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wolfram Sang [mailto:wsa@...-dreams.de]
> Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 5:04 PM
> To: Chew, Chiau Ee
> Cc: Mika Westerberg; linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] i2c: designware-pci: set ideal HCNT, LCNT and SDA
> hold time value
> 
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 10:12:51PM +0800, Chew Chiau Ee wrote:
> > From: Chew, Chiau Ee <chiau.ee.chew@...el.com>
> >
> > On Intel BayTrail, there was case whereby the resulting fast mode bus
> > speed becomes slower (~20% slower compared to expected speed) if using
> > the HCNT/LCNT calculated in the core layer. Thus, this patch is added
> > to allow pci glue layer to pass in optimal HCNT/LCNT/SDA hold time
> > values to core layer since the core layer supports cofigurable
> > HCNT/LCNT/SDA hold time values now.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Chew, Chiau Ee <chiau.ee.chew@...el.com>
> 
> Can you make use of those instead?
> 
>         u32                     sda_falling_time;
>         u32                     scl_falling_time;
> 
> This is more consistent with using sda_hold_time and lets them have a common
> (and more readable) unit.

Would like to clarify on your statement above. So you are suggesting to change the following 
variable name in the code? As in:
"u32 ss_hcnt;"   to  "u32 ss_scl_rising_time"
"u32 fs_hcnt;"   to  "u32 fs_scl_rising_time"
"u32 ss_lcnt;"    to   "u32 ss_scl_falling_time"
"u32 fs_lcnt;"     to " u32 fs_scl_falling_time"
"u32 sda_hold;"  to  "u32 sda_hold_time"

--
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/