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  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:   Tue, 25 Sep 2018 09:20:02 -0700
From:   Jae Hyun Yoo <jae.hyun.yoo@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
Cc:     linux-aspeed@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        James Feist <james.feist@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andrew Jeffery <andrew@...id.au>, openbmc@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
        Vernon Mauery <vernon.mauery@...ux.intel.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH i2c-next 1/2] dt-bindings: i2c: aspeed: Add
 'idle-wait-timeout-ms' setting

On 9/25/2018 1:27 AM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 03:15:46PM -0700, Jae Hyun Yoo wrote:
>> Hi Wolfram,
>>
>> On 9/24/2018 2:58 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 11:02:54AM -0700, Jae Hyun Yoo wrote:
>>>> On 9/10/2018 2:45 PM, Jae Hyun Yoo wrote:
>>>>> +- idle-wait-timeout-ms	: bus idle waiting timeout in milliseconds when
>>>>> +			  multi-master is set, defaults to 100 ms when not
>>>>> +			  specified.
>>>>
>>>> Will change it to 'aspeed,idle-wait-timeout-ms' as it's a non standard
>>>> property.
>>>
>>> No need. This binding is not a HW description, so not a DT property in
>>> my book. I still don't understand: Your IP core in master mode does not
>>> have a BUSY bit or similar which detects when a START was detected and
>>> clears after a STOP?
>>>
>>
>> Okay, I'll keep this property as it is then.
> 
> Sorry for the misunderstanding. I don't think this a property, at all.
> It doesn't describe the hardware, it is more of a configuration thing,
> or?
> 

You are right. It doesn't describe the hardware but it needs to be
configurable because it very depends on the peer master's behavior.
If peer master sends a long packet usually, it should have a long
timeout value since a slave receiving operation takes long time,
and it should be adjusted with an optimal value with taking some
experiments to make it not too long. Any suggestion?

Thanks,
Jae

Powered by blists - more mailing lists