linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] i2c: Raise SDA for each received bit, if necessary

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <5735FB9D.2060300@users.sourceforge.net>
Date:	Fri, 13 May 2016 18:06:53 +0200
From:	Thomas Zimmermann <tdz@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:	Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
Cc:	linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: Raise SDA for each received bit, if necessary

Hi

Am 13.05.2016 um 12:33 schrieb Wolfram Sang:
> 
>> I was playing with the DRM framework and an old SiS graphics card. I
>> discovered this issue while trying to read the EDID from the monitor.
> 
> So, there is no upstream user yet?

No.

>> I have a few other SiS cards/models here and they all expose this
>> behavior. So I guess it's intentional(==cheaper?), although the HW docs
>> don't seem mention it explicitly.
> 
> OK. Well. As this flag is potentially dangerous, I would prefer to not
> apply the patch unless there is an upstream user of this. If there is
> one, I'd be okay with applying it with the flag renamed to something
> like "dangerous_push_pull_bus" or similar with additional comments
> saying there is some (broken) HW which needs it but nobody should get
> the idea to design a bus like this.
> 
> Makes sense?

Sure, thanks!

Best regards
Thomas

> Regards,
> 
>    Wolfram
> 


-- 
GnuPG:          http://tdz.users.sourceforge.net/tdz.asc
Fingerprint:    16FF F599 82F8 E5AA 18C6 5220 D9DA D7D4 4EF1 DF08