linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 01/16] spi: dw: Add Tx/Rx finish wait methods to the MID DMA

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200522123427.GD1634618@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 22 May 2020 15:34:27 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     Serge Semin <Sergey.Semin@...kalelectronics.ru>,
        Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@...il.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...ricsson.com>,
        Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>, Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>,
        Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
        Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>,
        Georgy Vlasov <Georgy.Vlasov@...kalelectronics.ru>,
        Ramil Zaripov <Ramil.Zaripov@...kalelectronics.ru>,
        Alexey Malahov <Alexey.Malahov@...kalelectronics.ru>,
        Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
        Paul Burton <paulburton@...nel.org>,
        Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        Wan Ahmad Zainie <wan.ahmad.zainie.wan.mohamad@...el.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
        "wuxu.wu" <wuxu.wu@...wei.com>, Clement Leger <cleger@...ray.eu>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        linux-spi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 01/16] spi: dw: Add Tx/Rx finish wait methods to the
 MID DMA

On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 01:18:20PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 03:12:21PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 02:52:35PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote:
> 
> > > Please, see it's implementation. It does atomic delay when the delay value
> > > is less than 10us. But selectively gets to the usleep_range() if value is
> > > greater than that.
> 
> > Oh, than it means we may do a very long busy loop here which is not good at
> > all. If we have 10Hz clock, it might take seconds of doing nothing!
> 
> Realistically it seems unlikely that the clock will be even as slow as
> double digit kHz though, and if we do I'd not be surprised to see other
> problems kicking in.  It's definitely good to handle such things if we
> can but so long as everything is OK for realistic use cases I'm not sure
> it should be a blocker.

Perhaps some kind of warning? Funny that using spi_delay_exec() will issue such
a warning as a side effect of its implementation.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko