linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] i2c: busses: i2c-omap: Increase timeout for i2c interrupt

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:	Fri, 10 Jul 2015 19:14:23 +0530
From:	Vignesh R <vigneshr@...com>
To:	Alexander Sverdlin <alexander.sverdlin@...ia.com>,
	Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>, Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com>
CC:	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>, <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] i2c: busses: i2c-omap: Increase timeout for i2c interrupt

Hi,

On 07/10/2015 06:56 PM, Alexander Sverdlin wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> On 10/07/15 15:17, ext Vignesh R wrote:
>>>> I would propose you to throw away spinlocks. Convert threaded IRQ to
>>>>>> just one hardirq handler. And continue debugging. You will reduce the
>>>>>> load of the system with the above measures, maybe it will not happen
>>>>>> any more, maybe you'll figure out that problem is somewhere else.
>>>>
>>>> Or this.
>> I am not convinced with moving entire code at hardirq context. I believe
>> its better to keep hardirq as small as possible.
> 
> How deep is the controller's FIFO? 1 byte? 2 bytes? 

As per AM57x TRM[1] section 24.1.4.8 max FIFO depth can be 64bytes.

[1] http://www.ti.com/lit/ug/spruhz6/spruhz6.pdf
-- 
Regards
Vignesh
--
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/