linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 3/3] pwm: sifive: Fix the error in the idempotent test within the pwm_apply_state

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAHh=Yk8U+NK=Sk2UkwjL284-RJR3BLDUe+WCPXm_nH5J6soqPA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2025 16:28:40 +0800
From: Nylon Chen <nylon.chen@...ive.com>
To: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...libre.com>
Cc: Nylon Chen <nylon7717@...il.com>, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, 
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org, conor@...nel.org, robh+dt@...nel.org, 
	krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, palmer@...belt.com, 
	paul.walmsley@...ive.com, aou@...s.berkeley.edu, thierry.reding@...il.com, 
	vincent.chen@...ive.com, zong.li@...ive.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 3/3] pwm: sifive: Fix the error in the idempotent test
 within the pwm_apply_state_debug function

Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...libre.com> 於 2025年1月7日 週二 下午12:52寫道：
>
> Hello Nylon,
>
> On Mon, Jan 06, 2025 at 05:00:32PM +0800, Nylon Chen wrote:
> > Hi Uwe, I have made the following adjustments based on your
> > requirements. Does this align with what you had in mind?
> > - period
> > seq 5000 1 15000 | while read p; do echo $p >
> > /sys/class/pwm/pwmchip0/pwm0/period echo "Testing period: $p" done
> >
> > - duty cycle
> > for duty in $(seq 0 1 10000); do echo $duty >
> > /sys/class/pwm/pwmchip0/pwm0/duty_cycle echo "Testing duty cycle:
> > $duty" done
>
> That + doing the same test backwards (i.e. using seq 15000 -1 5000 for
> the period test and seq 10000 -1 0 for duty_cycle) should catch most
> rounding bugs.
>
Hi Uwe, I understand what you mean now (testing must consider both
backwards and forwards).

Thank you for taking the time to explain it to me.
> Best regards
> Uwe