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: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 07:10:21 +0000 From: Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au> To: Eddie James <eajames@...ux.ibm.com> Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, linux-spi@...r.kernel.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, Brad Bishop <bradleyb@...ziesquirrel.com>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] spi: fsi: Fix clock running too fast On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 at 21:06, Eddie James <eajames@...ux.ibm.com> wrote: > > > On 8/20/20 12:12 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 12:02:23PM -0500, Eddie James wrote: > >> From: Brad Bishop <bradleyb@...ziesquirrel.com> > >> > >> Use a clock divider tuned to a 200MHz FSI clock. Use of the previous > >> divider at 200MHz results in corrupt data from endpoint devices. Ideally > >> the clock divider would be calculated from the FSI clock, but that > >> would require some significant work on the FSI driver. > > Presumably this divider was chosen for FSI clocks that aren't 200MHz - > > how will those be handled? > > > They aren't handled at the moment, but 200MHz FSI represents the worst > case, as it's the maximum. Slower FSI clocks will simply result in > slower SPI clocks. That would be a good addition to the commit message, as I had the same question too. Cheers, Joel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists