linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv1 0/6] leds: pca9653x: support inverted outputs and cleanups

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:	Wed, 20 Apr 2016 11:17:38 +0200
From:	Ricardo Ribalda Delgado <ricardo.ribalda@...il.com>
To:	Olliver Schinagl <oliver@...inagl.nl>
Cc:	Jacek Anaszewski <j.anaszewski@...sung.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>,
	Richard Purdie <rpurdie@...ys.net>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux LED Subsystem <linux-leds@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Meerwald <pmeerw@...erw.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv1 0/6] leds: pca9653x: support inverted outputs and cleanups

Hello again

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 11:06 AM, Olliver Schinagl <oliver@...inagl.nl> wrote:

> The devil is in the details :)
:)
>>
>> Saving mode2 sounds like a good compromise then.
>>
>> But I still believe that we should limit the lock to ledout. No matter
>> what we do, we cannot have two leds blinking at different frequencies
>> on the same chip.
>
> So to save a mutex a little bit, we take the risk that nobody else enables
> the blink or if they do, enable it in the same way?
> If it saves so much, then I guess its worth the risk I suppose?

Give me a day to go through the chip doc and see if I can find a good
compromise, that at least warranties that the leds that are enable
stay enabled ;)

Regards!



-- 
Ricardo Ribalda