linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] reset: qcom: AOSS (always on subsystem) reset controller

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: <1524830050.17614.9.camel@pengutronix.de>
Date:   Fri, 27 Apr 2018 13:54:10 +0200
From:   Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>
To:     Sibi S <sibis@...eaurora.org>, bjorn.andersson@...aro.org,
        robh+dt@...nel.org
Cc:     linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, georgi.djakov@...aro.org,
        jassisinghbrar@...il.com, ohad@...ery.com, mark.rutland@....com,
        kyan@...eaurora.org, sricharan@...eaurora.org,
        akdwived@...eaurora.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        tsoni@...eaurora.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] reset: qcom: AOSS (always on subsystem) reset
 controller

Hi Sibi,

On Fri, 2018-04-27 at 16:45 +0530, Sibi S wrote:
[...]
> > > +	/* Wait 6 32kHz sleep cycles for reset */
> > > +	usleep_range(200, 210);
> > 
> > 6 32 kHz cycles are about 188 µs (184 µs for 32.768 kHz).
> > Just out of curiosity, is the minimum increased to 200 µs on purpose, or
> > to have a nice round number? The maximum seems oddly small, unless it is
> > essential to wait less than 7 cycles.
> 
> anything above 188 µs should be fine 200 µs is just a round number.
> 
> no it is not essential to wait less than 7 cycles so I can increase
> the max limit to 300 µs.

Ok, thanks for the info.

> > The driver looks good to me now. I plan to apply patches 1 and 2 with
> > Rob's ack.
> > Is it ok to merge them independently from the remoteproc driver, or is
> > there a dependency?
> 
> Yes it should be fine to merge them independently. I can add a dt entry
> to the dtsi and separate the 2 patches from the remoteproc patches if
> that helps ?

I plan to just pick up the reset DT binding documentation patch (1/5)
and the reset driver patch (2/5) then, whether they are sent separately
or as part of the larger remoteproc series does not matter to me.

The dtsi patch would have to go through the arm/qualcomm tree.
I can put the reset patches onto a separate branch that could be pulled
into the qcom tree ahead of the dtsi change, or you could send the dtsi
change with numbers at first, and only replace them with the header
defines after patch 1 is merged through the reset tree.

regards
Philipp