linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC] [media] s5k6aa: set usleep

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: <fe6f6e06-be7a-9a66-7723-7b37a0ae1675@samsung.com>
Date:   Tue, 13 Dec 2016 15:53:47 +0100
From:   Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki@...sung.com>
To:     Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
Cc:     Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@...dl.org>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
        Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
        Hans Verkuil <hans.verkuil@...co.com>,
        linux-media@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] [media] s5k6aa: set usleep_range greater 0

Hi Laurent,

On 12/13/2016 03:10 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> As pointed out by Ian Arkver, the datasheet states the delay should be >50µs. 
> Would it make sense to reduce the sleep duration to (3000, 4000) for instance 
> (or possibly even lower), instead of increasing it ?

Theoretically it would make sense, I believe the delay call should really
be part of the set_power callback.  I think it is safe to decrease the
delay value now, the boards using that driver have been dropped with commit

commit ca9143501c30a2ce5886757961408488fac2bb4c
ARM: EXYNOS: Remove unused board files

As far as I am concerned you can do whatever you want with that delay
call, remove it or decrease value, whatever helps to stop triggering
warnings from the static analysis tools.

--
Thanks,
Sylwester