[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2555599.AxGoQ20pkj@wuerfel>
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 20:31:27 +0100
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Scott Branden <sbranden@...adcom.com>
Cc: bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
Ray Jui <rjui@...adcom.com>,
Jonathan Richardson <jonathar@...adcom.com>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@...gle.com>,
Anatol Pomazao <anatol@...gle.com>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] hwrng: iproc-rng200 - Add Broadcom IPROC RNG driver
On Saturday 28 February 2015 08:01:11 Scott Branden wrote:
> > The udelay(10) that the other drivers have seems about appropriate then,
> > and we can independently think of a way to refine the interface.
> > Please add a comment that explains the rate. Also, is there some kind
> > of FIFO present in the hwrng device? If it can store close to 1ms work
> > of data (1000 bits), you can just use an msleep(1) to wait for the
> > pool to recover.
> FIFO is 512 bits. I will look as to whether we can live with 1/2
> throughput.
In that case, I think usleep_range(min(len * 8, 500), 500)) would be
a good compromise: it waits at most until the fifo is full, but might
return earlier if enough bits are available to fulfill the request.
Arnd
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists