linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] ARM: dts: vf-colibri: Add property for minimum sample time

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]

Message-ID: <c84f141e3e222a48b6adf52e686df7e9@agner.ch>
Date:	Wed, 15 Jul 2015 15:02:35 +0200
From:	Stefan Agner <stefan@...er.ch>
To:	Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>
Cc:	Sanchayan Maity <maitysanchayan@...il.com>, jic23@...nel.org,
	mark.rutland@....com, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	B38611@...escale.com, pawel.moll@....com,
	ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, robh+dt@...nel.org,
	kernel@...gutronix.de, galak@...eaurora.org, shawn.guo@...aro.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] ARM: dts: vf-colibri: Add property for minimum
 sample time

On 2015-07-15 03:57, Shawn Guo wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 07:23:23PM +0530, Sanchayan Maity wrote:
>> Add a device tree property which allows to specify the minimum sample
>> time which can be used to calculate the actual ADC cycles required
>> depending on the hardware.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Sanchayan Maity <maitysanchayan@...il.com>
>> ---
>>  arch/arm/boot/dts/vf-colibri.dtsi | 2 ++
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/vf-colibri.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/vf-colibri.dtsi
>> index ab10d2e..59f5deb 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/vf-colibri.dtsi
>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/vf-colibri.dtsi
>> @@ -16,10 +16,12 @@
>>  };
>>
>>  &adc0 {
>> +	min-sample-time = <1000>;
>>  	status = "okay";
>>  };
>>
>>  &adc1 {
>> +	min-sample-time = <1000>;
> 
> Since this is the default value anyway, we can just save the patch,
> right?

I thought it would be nice to be explicit here and define this value
which we verified internally.

On the other hand, we did not derived the minimum value from the DS
(using the capacity/resistance of the actual analog source connected) to
maximize the sampling frequency, hence I'm also ok with not explicitly
defining a value.

--
Stefan
--
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/