linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 7/8] iio: dac: ad3552r: add high-speed platform driver

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: <8caf3074e925dd131ff62375c6849a7f3ac6c5a6.camel@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2024 13:54:46 +0200
From: Nuno Sá <noname.nuno@...il.com>
To: David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com>, Angelo Dureghello
 <adureghello@...libre.com>, Nuno Sá
 <nuno.sa@...log.com>,  Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>, Michael
 Hennerich <Michael.Hennerich@...log.com>,  Jonathan Cameron
 <jic23@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski
 <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Olivier Moysan
 <olivier.moysan@...s.st.com>
Cc: linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 7/8] iio: dac: ad3552r: add high-speed platform driver

On Tue, 2024-10-15 at 09:48 -0500, David Lechner wrote:
> On 10/15/24 2:15 AM, Nuno Sá wrote:
> > On Mon, 2024-10-14 at 12:08 +0200, Angelo Dureghello wrote:
> > > From: Angelo Dureghello <adureghello@...libre.com>
> 
> ...
> 
> > > +	} else {
> > > +		err = ad3552r_qspi_update_reg_bits(st,
> > > +					AD3552R_REG_ADDR_INTERFACE_CONFIG_A,
> > > +					AD3552R_MASK_SOFTWARE_RESET,
> > > +					AD3552R_MASK_SOFTWARE_RESET, 1);
> > > +		if (err)
> > > +			return err;
> > > +	}
> > > +	msleep(100);
> > 
> > nit: fsleep()
> > 
> 
> fsleep() is microseconds, but we really do want milliseconds here.
> Datasheet t_18 is 100 ms. (Internally, fsleep() calls msleep()

I know. That's why the nitpick :). I just see it as a good practice...
 
> for anything over 20 ms anyway so makes more sense to just call
> msleep() directly and avoid 3 extra 0s.)
> 

Anyways, fair enough

- Nuno Sá