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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 11:36:45 +0200 From: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org> To: Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@...ntech.at> Cc: Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, linux-clk <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] clk: ux500: add range to usleep_range On Sun, 7 Apr 2019 at 05:13, Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@...ntech.at> wrote: > > Providing a range for usleep_range() allows the hrtimer subsystem to > coalesce timers - the delay is runtime configurable so a factor 2 > is taken to provide the range. > > Signed-off-by: Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@...ntech.at> > --- > > Problem located with an experimental coccinelle script > > Q: Basically usleep_range() with min == max never makes much sense notably > in non-atomic context. If the factor of 2 is tolerable or a fixed > offset of e.g. 1000 would be more suitable is not clear to me - maybe > someone familiar with that driver can clarify this. > > Patch was compile tested with: u8500_defconfig (implies COMMON_CLK=y) > (with some sparse warnings about not implemented system calls) > > Patch is against 5.1-rc3 (localversion-next is next=20190405) > > drivers/clk/ux500/clk-sysctrl.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/clk/ux500/clk-sysctrl.c b/drivers/clk/ux500/clk-sysctrl.c > index 7c0403b..a1fa3fb 100644 > --- a/drivers/clk/ux500/clk-sysctrl.c > +++ b/drivers/clk/ux500/clk-sysctrl.c > @@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ static int clk_sysctrl_prepare(struct clk_hw *hw) > clk->reg_bits[0]); > > if (!ret && clk->enable_delay_us) > - usleep_range(clk->enable_delay_us, clk->enable_delay_us); > + usleep_range(clk->enable_delay_us, clk->enable_delay_us*2); The range being used is actually in ms, so not sure we actually need to double it for the range. How about adding ~25% instead, along the lines of below: usleep_range(clk->enable_delay_us, clk->enable_delay_us + (clk->enable_delay_us >> 2)); Kind regards Uffe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists