linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] spi: spi-geni-qcom: Use the FIFO even more

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:   Tue, 15 Sep 2020 13:00:00 +0530
From:   Akash Asthana <akashast@...eaurora.org>
To:     Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     swboyd@...omium.org, Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-spi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] spi: spi-geni-qcom: Use the FIFO even more


On 9/13/2020 2:37 AM, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> In commit 902481a78ee4 ("spi: spi-geni-qcom: Actually use our FIFO") I
> explained that the maximum size we could program the FIFO was
> "mas->tx_fifo_depth - 3" but that I chose "mas->tx_fifo_depth()"
> because I was worried about decreased bandwidth.
>
> Since that time:
> * All the interconnect patches have landed, making things run at the
>    proper speed.
> * I've done more measurements.
>
> This lets me confirm that there's really no downside of using the FIFO
> more.  Specifically I did "flashrom -p ec -r /tmp/foo.bin" on a
> Chromebook and averaged over several runs.
>
> Before: It took 6.66 seconds and 59669 interrupts fired.
> After:  It took 6.66 seconds and 47992 interrupts fired.

Reviewed-by: Akash Asthana <akashast@...eaurora.org>

> Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
> ---
>
>
-- 
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,\na Linux Foundation Collaborative Project