linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] leds: leds-pca963x: workaround group blink scaling issue

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: <20161014142047.imm4idfetphlp5od@atomide.com>
Date:   Fri, 14 Oct 2016 07:20:47 -0700
From:   Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
To:     Jacek Anaszewski <j.anaszewski@...sung.com>
Cc:     Matt Ranostay <mranostay@...il.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Matt Ranostay <matt@...ostay.consulting>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <Mark.Rutland@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] leds: leds-pca963x: workaround group blink scaling issue

* Jacek Anaszewski <j.anaszewski@...sung.com> [161013 23:37]:
> On 10/13/2016 04:20 PM, Matt Ranostay wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 4:05 PM, Jacek Anaszewski
> > <j.anaszewski@...sung.com> wrote:
> > > Why DT property? Is it somehow dependent on the board configuration?
> > > How this period-scale value is calculated? Is it inferred empirically?
> > > 
> > 
> > We empirically discovered and verified this with an logic analyzer on
> > multiple batches of this part.
> > Reason for the DT entry is we aren't 100% sure that it is always going
> > to be the same with different board revs.
> > 
> > Could be that parts clock acts differently with supply voltage.   This
> > has been calculated by setting it an expected value, and measuring the
> > actual result with the logic analyzer.
> 
> I'd like to have DT maintainer's ack for this.
> 
> Cc Rob and Mark.

How about do this based on the compatible property instead? If there
are multiple manufacturers for this part and only a certain
parts have this issue we should have multiple compatible properties.

Then if it turns out all of them need this scaling there's no need
to update the binding.

Regards,

Tony