linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/1] pwm: pca9685: fix gpio-only operation.

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: <20170420155534.GF7152@lahna.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 20 Apr 2017 18:55:34 +0300
From:   Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:     Sven Van Asbroeck <thesven73@...il.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>, linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Sven Van Asbroeck <TheSven73@...glemail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/1] pwm: pca9685: fix gpio-only operation.

On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 06:07:37PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Sven Van Asbroeck <thesven73@...il.com> wrote:
> >> Taking above into consideration perhaps sleep is not quite good word
> >> at all. By functional description it sounds like latency tolerance to
> >> me.
> >
> > That's true, but the bit description in the chip datasheet is 'SLEEP'.
> > (its real function is suspend/low power, but the chip designers called
> > it 'SLEEP')
> >
> > Calling the bit/function something else is likely to confuse someone
> > who's reading the driver in combination with the chip datasheet.
> 
> Looking again into the patch I have noticed:
> 1) word 'sleep' is used as a part of a function name;
> 2) int sleep is used as binary value.
> 
> Thus, I would suggest: int sleep -> bool enable (or alike).
> 
> Would we agree on that?

That sounds good to me. I guess it will have to be an incremental patch
since this one has already been applied.