linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/6] pinctrl: Add a possibility to configure pins from a gpiolib based drivers

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:   Fri, 13 Jan 2017 18:33:24 +0200
From:   Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc:     Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
        "David E . Box" <david.e.box@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/6] pinctrl: Add a possibility to configure pins from
 a gpiolib based drivers

On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 04:36:42PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 10:22 AM, Mika Westerberg
> <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hmm, looking at users of .set_debounce() I can see that the debounce
> > time can be quite large. For example some signals which are connected to
> > physical push-buttons may need > 64ms debounce time.
> >
> > However, the current pinconfig value is defined to be unsigned long
> > which on 32-bit architecture is 32-bits. From that the higher 16-bits
> > are used as config leaving the value to be 16-bits. This gives maximum
> > debounce time of 65535us. I don't think it can cover all the uses of
> > .set_debounce(). This could also be problematic when specifying values
> > for pull resistors.
> >
> > One solution is to convert the packed value to be u64 instead, leaving
> > up to 48-bits for the value. Alternatively we could provide a scale
> > field with the packed format.
> 
> Hm yeah as long as all in-kernel users survive I don't see why we
> couldn't just make it 64bit. Is it a big deal?

As long as everyone is using those macros and inline functions from
pinconf-generic.h, I think the conversion should be pretty
straightforward.