linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] i2c: designware: No need to disable already disabled controller

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, 2 Jun 2014 19:36:36 +0200
From:	Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
To:	Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	Yao Jin <yao.jin@...el.com>, Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@...el.com>,
	linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] i2c: designware: No need to disable already disabled
 controller

On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 08:34:08PM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 06:12:34PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 05:37:21PM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > > If the controller is already in desired state (enabled/disabled) there is
> > > no point in setting its state again.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
> > > ---
> > 
> > Does it have a side-effect when setting then enable bit again? Otherwise
> > it will exit the loop immediately on the first try. Not too bad IMO
> > given the additional code saved.
> 
> AFAICT there shouldn't be any side effect. So the $subject patch just
> saves one register write in the best case. You are right, maybe it's not
> worth adding 3 extra lines of code just for that :)

:) Okay, so I'll drop it.


Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)