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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <c933430c-1ea8-5dae-fe75-a0acc4592aae@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 11:24:26 +0800 From: "Ji-Ze Hong (Peter Hong)" <hpeter@...il.com> To: Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org> Cc: gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "Ji-Ze Hong (Peter Hong)" <hpeter+linux_kernel@...il.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH V1 3/4] usb: serial: f81534: add output pin control Hi Johan, >> In this code, I'm only read/write 3 registers of 0x2ae8, 0x2a90, 0x2a80, >> but some register will read/write more than once. Should I change the >> code from port_probe() to attach() and re-write it as: >> 1: read the 3 register >> 2: change them will 12 pin desire value >> 3: write it back >> Is it ok? > > Do you expect these pins to ever be changed after probe? If not, then > perhaps it can be moved to attach(), but otherwise I guess they should > be set at port_probe(). By using shadow registers, you should be able to > reduce the number of device accesses, but perhaps it's not worth the > complexity. > > Do you have a rough idea about how long these register updates take? I > was just worried that these changes will add up to really long probe > times. > I had measured the time of the loop in f81534_set_port_output_pin() via getnstimeofday() with 685.410 ~ 3681.682us per port, but normally with 600~800us per port. So I prefer remain the current method of f81534_set_port_output_pin(). Is it ok? Thanks -- With Best Regards, Peter Hong
Powered by blists - more mailing lists