linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH i2c-next 1/2] dt-bindings: i2c: aspeed: Add 'idle-wait-timeout-ms' setting

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]

Date:   Wed, 26 Sep 2018 09:20:47 -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 9:20 AM, Jae Hyun Yoo wrote:
> 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?
> 

Should I use timeout in struct i2c_adapter instead just like i2c-mpc
does?