linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RESEND 4/4] mfd: arizona: Use regmap_read_poll

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]

Date:   Wed, 15 Mar 2017 14:40:37 +0000
From:   Charles Keepax <ckeepax@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To:     Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
CC:     <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <patches@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND 4/4] mfd: arizona: Use regmap_read_poll_timeout
 instead of hard coding it

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 12:17:03PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Mar 2017, Charles Keepax wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 05:07:04PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > On Thu, 09 Mar 2017, Charles Keepax wrote:
> > > 
> > > > arizona_poll_reg essentially hard-codes regmap_read_poll_timeout, this
> > > > patch updates the implementation to use regmap_read_poll_timeout. We
> > > > still keep arizona_poll_reg around as regmap_read_poll_timeout is a
> > > > macro so rather than expand this for each caller keep it wrapped in
> > > > arizona_poll_reg.
> > > > 
> > > > Whilst we are doing this make the timeouts a little more generous as the
> > > > previous system had a bit more slack as it was done as a delay per
> > > > iteration of the loop whereas regmap_read_poll_timeout compares ktime's.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Charles Keepax <ckeepax@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/mfd/arizona-core.c | 38 ++++++++++++++------------------------
> > > >  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > Apart from patch count, is there any technical reason why this patch
> > > shouldn't just be rolled into patch 3?
> > > 
> > 
> > I prefer it as two patches as its clearer what happened from the
> > history. One patch changes the interface for the function, the
> > other updates the implementation. Can squash if you feel strongly
> > about it though?
> 
> I don't feel that strongly about it, but to me it looks like patch 4
> reworks everything patch 3 did.
> 

I will spin a new version and squash them.

Thanks,
Charles