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: <20161215011405.GB22190@osadl.at>
Date:   Thu, 15 Dec 2016 01:14:05 +0000
From:   Nicholas Mc Guire <der.herr@...r.at>
To:     Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki@...sung.com>
Cc:     Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
        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

On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 03:53:47PM +0100, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:
> 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.
>
if its actually unused then it might be best to completely drop the code
raher than fixing up dead-code. Is the EXYNOS the only system that had
this device in use ? If it shold stay in then setting it to the above
proposed 3000, 4000 would seem the most resonable to me as I asume this
change would stay untested.

thx!
hofrat