linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] media: rc: pwm-ir-tx: Switch to atomic PWM API

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]

Message-ID: <20211029115412.GA32383@gofer.mess.org>
Date:   Fri, 29 Oct 2021 12:54:12 +0100
From:   Sean Young <sean@...s.org>
To:     Uwe Kleine-König 
        <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Cc:     Maíra Canal <maira.canal@....br>, lkp@...el.com,
        mchehab@...nel.org, thierry.reding@...il.com, lee.jones@...aro.org,
        llvm@...ts.linux.dev, kbuild-all@...ts.01.org,
        linux-media@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] media: rc: pwm-ir-tx: Switch to atomic PWM API

On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 01:06:02PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 08:16:08AM +0100, Sean Young wrote:
> > This means with your changes, if the carrier and duty cycle are both set
> > for each transmission, then we're doing more work. If only the carrier
> > is set for each transmission, then there is no net gain/loss (I think),
> > but the code size has increased.
> 
> OK, then I discard my patch.
> 
> While reading that I wondered if it makes sense to have a callback that
> sets both carrier and duty cycle and then remove the other two.

There are separate lirc ioctls to set carrier and duty cycle, that's why
there are separate callbacks.


Sean