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]
Date:   Tue, 24 Oct 2023 20:54:05 +0000
From:   Chris Packham <>
To:     Andi Shyti <>
CC:     "" <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] i2c: mv64xxx: add an optional reset-gpios property

On 25/10/23 09:37, Andi Shyti wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>>> as you are working on the v4...
>>> ...
>>>> +	if (drv_data->reset_gpio) {
>>>> +		usleep_range(reset_duration, reset_duration + 10);
>>> I'm not against this, but it's not optimal unless we know more or
>>> less what to expect from reset_duration.
>>> Do we have a rough idea of what reset_duration is? If we don't
>>> then you could consider using a generic "fsleep(reset_duration);"
>>> Would it work?
>> flseep() would work for me. All of the devices I'm testing with seem to
>> be fine with a very short reset pulse, they'd probably be fine with no
>> delay at all.
> you know this better than me :-)
> If you say that a delay is not necessary, then I'm also fine.
> In any case, we are in probe and I don't think it's time
> critical, so that a little delay wouldn't hurt and make everyone
> happy.
> Either way I'm fine as long as you use the correct sleeping
> function.

My particular hardware doesn't need it but for this to be generally 
usable I think it is necessary to provide the capability for some kind 
of hardware specific reset-duration. I'll look at fsleep() for v4 (or 
say why I've stuck with usleep_range() in the changelog).

> Andi

Powered by blists - more mailing lists