linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] media: i2c: imx274: Add IMX274 power on and off sequence

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200907074854.uxq4a76k5amjfopi@uno.localdomain>
Date:   Mon, 7 Sep 2020 09:48:54 +0200
From:   Jacopo Mondi <jacopo@...ndi.org>
To:     Sowjanya Komatineni <skomatineni@...dia.com>
Cc:     thierry.reding@...il.com, jonathanh@...dia.com,
        sakari.ailus@....fi, hverkuil@...all.nl, jacopo+renesas@...ndi.org,
        luca@...aceresoli.net, leonl@...pardimaging.com,
        robh+dt@...nel.org, lgirdwood@...il.com, broonie@...nel.org,
        linux-media@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] media: i2c: imx274: Add IMX274 power on and off
 sequence

Hello,

On Fri, Sep 04, 2020 at 10:04:10AM -0700, Sowjanya Komatineni wrote:
>
> On 9/4/20 1:55 AM, Jacopo Mondi wrote:
> > > > usleep_range() allows you to provide an interval in which your timeout
> > > > can be coalesced with others. Giving a [1usec, 2usec] range kind of
> > > > defeat the purpose. And most than everything, does sleeping for 2usec
> > > > serve any real purpose ?
> > > Following delay recommendation from DS for power on sequence.
> > >
> > 2 useconds ? Seems very short:)
> >
> As per IMX274 datasheet for power on sequence, 100ns is the min wait time
> after the last power supply of 1v8/1v2/2v8 is ON before releasing RESET
> high.

ook.. well, it's actually reasonable, it's just the time for the
regulators to ramp up, I initially thought it was the time for the
chip to exit reset.

Let me be a bit more picky and ask if you have considered busy waiting
on such a small sleep interval by using udelay. Again, as this happens
at chip power on only, the impact on the system of mis-using
usleep_range() is negligible, but according to documentation:

	SLEEPING FOR "A FEW" USECS ( < ~10us? ):
		* Use udelay

		- Why not usleep?
			On slower systems, (embedded, OR perhaps a speed-
			stepped PC!) the overhead of setting up the hrtimers
			for usleep *may* not be worth it. Such an evaluation
			will obviously depend on your specific situation, but
			it is something to be aware of.

Up to you, really!

Thanks
  j